Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Great Western Railway Bill (by Order), London and North Eastern Railway Bill (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till To-morrow.

London, Midland, and Scottish Railway Bill (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Monday next.

Metropolitan Railway Bill (by Order),

Southern Railway Bill (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till To-morrow.

CLYDE NAVIGATION BILL,

"to amend the provisions of the Clyde Navigation Acts, 1858 to 1919, relating to rates, dues, tolls, rents and charges; to confer further powers on the Trustees of the Clyde Navigation; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

SUPPLEMENTARY ALLOWANCES.

Mr. SMEDLEY CROOKE: 1.
asked the Minister of Pensions if he is aware of the dissatisfaction existing among disabled officers in the country owing to the recent reductions in their supplementary allowances; that in most cases these officers are unemployed and are ineligible both for health or unemployment insurance; that these allowances were recommended by a select committee and accepted by the Government at definite rates; will he inform the House on whose instructions the supplementary allowances were reduced; and will he restore the full rates during the period of their unemployment?

The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Major Tryon): The suggestion that there has been a recent and general reduction in the supplementary allowances to disabled officers is unfounded. These allowances, which are for the benefit of the families of officers, and which are administered by the Special Grants Committee, had from the outset the discretionary nature common to all grants from that Committee. They are not, as suggested, at specific rates, but at such rate as may be thought necessary within specified maxima; moreover, they are temporary, and are subject to review from time to time according to the ascertained need of each case as arising from the disablement sustained. No instructions have been given to reduce the allowances, which, I repeat, are at the discretion of the Special Grants Committee. I should have no authority to adopt the suggestion made in the last part of this Question.

Mr. CROOKE: Will my right hon. and gallant Friend let me know the personnel of the Special Grants Committee?

Major TRYON: Certainly.

COMMUTATION.

Mr. GEORGE THORNE: 3.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that Mr. A. J. Robinson, lately of 25, Coleshill Street, Birmingham, who was before the War in business as a hairdresser, and whose business was sacrificed by reason of his service in the War, in respect whereof he is now in receipt of a pension of 4s. 8d. per week, has now applied for permission to commute his pension to enable him to set up again in business as a hairdresser; that permission was refused to Mr. Robinson on the ground that pensions of 7s. a week or less may not be commuted; that Mr. Robinson is now out of employment; and whether the Ministry of Pensions will consider a variation of its regulations in cases in which an application for the commutation of a small pension can be shown to be to the advantage of the applicant?

Major TRYON: I am aware of the facts in this case, on which I have been in communication with the hon. Member. I
have no authority to make an exception to the statutory Regulations referred to, which are common to the Service Departments along with my own, and which, in respect of this particular provision, are, in my experience, in the best interests of pensioners.

Mr. THORNE: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman taking steps to make variations in cases such as these, where an applicant states specifically that he has not the means to enable him to secure hospital treatment?

Major TRYON: I do not think commutation would be in the interests of pensioners, who would lose a permanent pension for a temporary gain.

TREATMENT ALLOWANCE (T. BROPHY).

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: 4.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that No. 24,662, Gunner T. Brophy, Royal Garrison Artillery, discharged 13th August, 1918, suffering from neurasthenia, has been in and out of mental hospitals since that time, his wife always receiving treatment allowance; that he was notified on 11th July, 1928, of an award of 100 per cent. pension; that on 18th November last he had to be removed to Dundee Eastern Hospital for observation, and on 1st January transferred to West Green Asylum; that the Ministry, having informed Mrs. Brophy of the parish council claiming against her husband's pension, also intimated to her that the pension would therefore be reduced to 28s. 10d. per week; that Mrs. Brophy, with a young family of seven children, has been obliged to apply to the parish council for relief, receiving last week the sum of 12s. 6d.; and will he now arrange for the patient being removed to one of the Ministry's institutions, renewing treatment allowance at £3 0s. 6d. per week to Mrs. Brophy as formerly?

Major TRYON: According to the information in the possession of the Ministry, the man referred to had not previously been in a mental hospital, and the temporary reduction of the payment made to his wife was occasioned by the claim made by the local authority pending determination of the man's position. The amount deducted was, however, refunded to Mrs. Brophy more than a week ago, and her husband's pension of 50s. a week
is being paid in full to her, less a small amount of pocket money provided for him. The entire cost of his maintenance and treatment is being defrayed by the Ministry. The case is not eligible during treatment for any payment in excess of this amount. With regard to the last part of the question, should it at any time appear to the mental authorities concerned that Mr. Brophy would benefit by removal to one of the special mental institutions provided by the Ministry, arrangements will be made accordingly.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: In view of the circumstances appertaining to this man's sustained mental depression, could not the Ministry arrange, in accordance with the original undertaking in the early stages of the War, that all mental cases should be provided for in Government institutions?

Major TRYON: I think the hon. Member has not heard my answer, which was that this man is being provided for.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: Yes, but at present is it not the case that the patient is in a Poor Law institution, and I am asking precisely if the right hon. Gentleman cannot arrange, according to the undertaking originally given in the War, that such cases should be provided for in a mental institution under the Government—that is, a mental institution controlled by the right hon. Gentleman's Department?

Major TRYON: No such undertaking was ever given, though I was myself responsible for starting two special institutions for suitable cases, and, if this case were found to be suitable, it would be so dealt with.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: Mr. Barnes did so.

WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION.

Mr. TINKER: 5.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give the figures showing the cost per ton of coal raised: what this represents per £1 of wages paid in the mining industry to meet the charges made under the Workmen's Compensation Act for the years 1921, 1922, 1923, 1924, 1925 and 1927; and will he give the corresponding figures as to the cost per £1 of wages in shipping, factories, docks, and railways?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir William Joynson-Hicks): As the answer is a long

Workmen's Compensation.


The following figures are calculated on the basis simply of the compensation paid:—


—
1921.
1922.
1923.
1924.
1925.
1927.


Coal Mining—
Pence.
Pence.
Pence.
Pence.
Pence.
Pence.


(a) per ton of coal raised
…
…
3.2
3.2
3.2
3.0
3.1
2.9


(b) per £1 of wages
…
…
3.3
5.7
5.7
4.9
5.4
5.7


Railways per £l of wages
…
…
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0


Shipping per gross ton of shipping
…
…
2.3
2.7
2.4
3.3
3.4
3.4


In the absence of the necessary data it is not possible to give the corresponding figures as to the cost per £1 of wages in respect of shipping, factories or docks.


As regards factories, attention may be drawn to the paragraph at the bottom of page 8 and top of page 9 of the Statistics for 1926 in which it was estimated, from information available as the result of a recent inquiry into earnings by the Ministry of Labour, that the compensation paid in 1926 per £1 of wages in factories was a little under 1d.

Mr. TINKER: 6.
asked the Home Secretary to what extent he causes Returns to be made as to the amount of compensation paid each year by employers under the Workmen's Compensation Act?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I would refer the hon. Member to the volumes of Workmen's Compensation Statistics which are presented each year to Parliament. These statistics contain full information in regard to the Returns collected under the Act. They are very long, and the hon. Member will be able to get them in the Vote Office.

Mr. TINKER: I have seen them, but they are not complete. Certain industries are not brought in, and it is because of the incompleteness of the Return that I have put this question down. Cannot the right hon. Gentleman get powers to make the Return complete?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The obtaining of further powers was not the question on the Paper, which was to what extent I cause Returns to be made. If the hon. Member will look, he will see the extent—it is too long to put in an answer—to which the Returns are made, and if he is not then satisfied, he can bring in a Bill to give me more powers.

Mr. TINKER: I will put down another question.

Mr. BATEY: Do not the statistics to which the right hon. Gentleman has re-

one and involves a number of figures, I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

ferred apply only to insurance companies? Do they include cases where the owners have insurance systems of their own?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The Return is a very full one, and it is the fullest Return we can make for the moment. If hon. Members will explain any particular points on which they would like the Return amended, I will see whether it is possible to do it.

Mr. TINKER: 7.
asked the Home Secretary if he is in a position to give the total amount of compensation paid under the Workmen's Compensation Act for 1927, and the number of fatal and nonfatal cases that it covers?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The total compensation paid in the year 1927—the latest year for which figures are published—in the seven great industrial groups for which Returns are collected was £6,315,803; the number of fatal cases was 2,567, and the number of non-fatal cases 435,852. I regret that no corresponding figures are available for the other industries under the Act, but an estimate of the total amount paid in these industries in respect of workmen's compensation for 1927 is given on page 8 of the Statistics.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say exactly what premiums were paid in the seven large industries during the same year?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The hon. Member must give me notice of that question.

Mr. PALING: In view of the fact that this information is incomplete, is it not desirable that further powers should be secured in order to compel them to fulfil their obligations?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The hon. Member knows that I have been asked a question on that, and it is a very big question. It is quite impossible for me to legislate this Session, but I am going into the whole matter and having reports made with a view to considering the possibility of drafting a Bill for next Session.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

PARKING PLACES (LIGHTS ON VEHICLES).

Sir FRANK MEYER: 10.
asked the Home Secretary whether the Commissioner of Police has exercised the power vested in him under the Road Vehicles Lighting Regulations, 1928, to exempt from lighting requirements vehicles standing in any of the recognised parking places in the Metropolitan area; and, if so, at which places?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The answer is in the negative.

Sir F. MEYER: Will my right hon. Friend consult with the Commissioner as to why he has never used these powers? Is he not aware that there are many parking places in London where it is absolutely superfluous to keep the lights on 40 or 50 cars standing in a block?

Mr. CRAWFURD: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that there is certainly one well known place in London which is only used as a parking place, namely, Waterloo Place, which is well lighted, and where no other traffic goes through, and there is no possibility of accidents?

Captain BRASS: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the parking places in Paris they do not have to keep the lights on at all?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The position here is that the Commissioner of Police is only permitted to grant exemption from lighting in parking places
that are not used for other traffic. The hon. Member opposite mentioned Waterloo Place, but one knows quite well that there is traffic going through Waterloo Place.

Mr. CRAWFURD: I am referring to the southern part of Waterloo Place, where there is no through traffic at all, unless indeed it goes down the steps into the Park.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: But the hon. Member must know that there is traffic going through Waterloo Place. The people who live there must have access to their houses. I will, however, bear that case in mind, but, if my hon. Friend will tell me of two or three places which he thinks quite properly come under the terms of the Act, to enable the Commissioner to exempt them, I will consult him on the subject.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: St. James's Square.

Mr. MONTAGUE: In view of the fact that no charge is made for parking in public places, is it unreasonable to require a little light to be put on the cars?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Parliament has been very clear on the subject. It says that it is only w here there is no other traffic going through that lighting may be dispensed with, and I can only consider places where there is no other traffic.

Captain BRASS: Are we to understand that the lighting is to prevent other vehicles running into the vehicles in the parking place?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: indicated assent.

TRAMCARS, LONDON.

Sir HARRY BRITTAIN: 14.
asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the absence of vestibule fronts to London County Council tramcars; and whether any objections have been advanced by the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police to the drivers being enclosed?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: No application has been made by the London County Council to the Commissioner to approve the fitting of vestibule fronts to London County Council tramcars but the general question is under the Com-
missioner's consideration and tests are being made with a partial vestibule front and weather screen. The safety of the public must however be the first consideration.

ROADS (TRAFFIC REQUIREMENTS).

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: 47.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the resolution passed by the National Council of the Roads Improvement Association urging the need of a national road programme to meet traffic requirements of the next 25 years and recommending that a portion of the Road Fund income be used to provide the capital sum necessary to finance this programme and enable it to be carried out within the next seven years; and what action he proposes to take?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Churchill): Yes, Sir. I have seen the resolution referred to. Rut I have no statement to make on behalf of the Government at the present time.

MOTOR TAXATION.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: 49.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can give the cost of a reduction of 50 per cent, of the horse-power tax on motorcars over five years old?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): I have been asked to reply to this question. I have no reliable data on which to form an estimate of the number of cars in the horse power class which would be affected by a remission of 50 per cent. of the duty in respect of cars over five years old. From such information as I have, however, it would appear that the cost of such a concession in the first full year might approach one and a half millions.

Mr. DAY: Is it not easy for the right hon. Gentleman to obtain this information?

Oral Answers to Questions — POLICE.

CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION DEPARTMENT (CHIEF CONSTABLE).

Mr. HAYES: 11.
asked the Home Secretary whether he is in a position to make a statement to the House with regard to the resignation of the Chief Constable,
Criminal Investigation Department, New Scotland Yard; and whether he proposes to fill the vacancy caused thereby?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am glad to be able to say that there is no vacancy to fill, as no such resignation has been tendered.

Mr. HAYES: Having in mind the age and the long period of service of the officer in question, if he did resign, would it not be accepted in the normal course of events?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I think that really is a matter for this officer, who has served well and faithfully for many years. He has not tendered his resignation, and I do not think I ought to express any opinion. It would come in the ordinary course before the Commissioner. I have no idea that any such resignation is pending.

Mr. HAYES: Is it not the case that the service he has now completed would in fact entitle him to retire normally at any time now for pension?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Yes, certainly.

SHOP HOURS (TOBACCONISTS).

Sir F. MEYER: 13.
asked the Home Secretary whether any local authorities have made orders under Section 3 of the Shops (Hours of Closing) Act, 1928, substituting a later hour for the closing of tobacconists' shops at the request of the tobacconists in the district affected?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Orders under this Section do not come to me for confirmation but I have heard of three cases where such Orders have been made and of others where the question of making such an Order is under consideration.

Sir F. MEYER: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider sending a circular to local authorities to ascertain how far this provision is being put into force, and in order that misleading statements which are being made in the Press and elsewhere as to compulsion being exercised, may be refuted?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I will consider it.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Has the right hon. Gentleman the names of the three areas in which this provision has come into operation?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Yes. Cheshire County Council, parish of Newton-by-Chester, Essex County Council, urban district of Chingford, and the borough of Neath. There may be more, but these are the only three I have.

JUVENILE OFFENDER (SENTENCE).

Sir FRANK SANDERSON: 16.
asked the Home Secretary whether he has considered the case of a boy of 17 who has been sentenced to three year's penal servitude; and whether he will take steps to have the boy transferred to a Borstal institution?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: My attention has been called to this case. The boy has a period of ten days from the date of conviction within which he may apply to the Court of Criminal Appeal for leave to appeal against his sentence. In the meantime it would not be proper for me to intervene.

Sir BERTRAM FALLE: Will the right hon. Gentleman have inquiry made into the mental state of this lad?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Every possible inquiry is being made and has been made. Until I know whether he is going to exercise his right of appeal or not, it is impossible for me to say anything which might prejudice the appeal.

Captain PETER MACDONALD: Is it not a fact that information has been conveyed to the boy concerned, that he is to be supplied with counsel and that the cost is to he borne by someone other than himself?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Full information and the necessary forms have been sent to him, as they always are sent to prisoners in such cases, and he has now the option either of signing these forms and appealing to the Court of Criminal Appeal, or of leaving himself in my hands. I cannot say more than that at the moment.

Commander OLIVER LOCKERLAMPSON: Cannot he be mentally examined regardless of that fact?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: With the greatest respect, having regard to what I have said about the case, I hope hon. Members will not press me to make any further replies. I have the matter very fully under consideration.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC HEALTH.

MENTAL DEFICIENCY (REPORT).

Mr. R. MORRISON: 18.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether he has now decided to publish the Report of the Departmental Committee upon Mental Deficiency; and when it will be available?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Lord Eustace Percy): I am arranging for the publication of the first section of the Report, which will include all the Committee's findings and recommendations on matters falling within the scope of my Department and the local education authorities, together with the report of a survey of the incidence of mental deficiency in certain typical areas which was carried out for the Committee by one of the medical officers of the Board of Control. These documents are not yet in print, and in view of their length I am afraid that they will not be available before Easter. I should like to take this opportunity of thanking the Committee for a most valuable Report, which I believe will be of the greatest assistance to all those interested in the education of mentally deficient children.

Mr. MORRISON: I take it that the Report will be available for those interested in the matter somewhere about Easter?

Lord E. PERCY: I cannot undertake to say that it will be physically possible to get the Report through by a particular date. It cannot be got through before Easter, but I hope it will be got through not long afterwards.

Mr. CRAWFURD: Is there any truth in the rumour that the Government propose to suppress this Report until after the General Election?

Lord E. PERCY: Clearly, from what I have said, there can be no truth in it.

EYE-GLASSES (SALE).

Mr. DAY: 28.
asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that certain optical establishments are advertising that they will supply a home test chart and order form, from which eye-glasses are made up, forwarded by post, and guaranteed to give complete satisfaction; and whether, in view of the injury to the health of the nation that can result from unsuitable eye-glasses, he will consider setting up an inquiry for the purpose of considering this subject and introducing legislation to prohibit this practice?

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Chamberlain): My attention had not previously been drawn to the facts stated in the first part of the question. A full inquiry into the problems connected with any regulation of the practice of opticians was made in 1927 by the Departmental Committee on the Optical Practitioners' (Registration) Bill, and I would refer the hon. Member to their Report (Cmd. 2999).

Mr. DAY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this practice has only grown up during the last year or 18 months; and does his Department approve of the system?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It may be that it has only grown up recently, but, think the general considerations raised by the facts to which the hon. Member desires to call my attention, were considered by the Committee to which I refer.

Mr. DAY: As these facts are new, and not mentioned in that Committee's report, will the right hon. Gentleman have inquiries made?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not think there is anything new which requires independent inquiry. The same questions were raised by the report of the Committee as are raised now.

FEVER PATIENT'S DEATH, HOLY ISLAND, NORTHUMBERLAND.

Mr. SHIELD: 41.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that Mrs. George Cromarty, of Sydney Cottage, Holy Island, Northumberland, on 20th October, 1928, suffering from typhoid fever, was ordered by the medical officer to rise from her bed and dress, and then
conveyed in an ordinary four-wheeled cab to the mainland three miles over the sands, the tide being up and the cab awash all the way, and the patient being in a sitting position during the journey; that the order for removal was given by the medical officer without medical examination of the patient and against the advice of the local practitioner; that Mrs. Cromarty died within a few minutes of being transferred to the ambulance which was waiting; that had the removal been delayed for a few hours the ambulance car could have carried out the removal from the island, and that provision for isolation on the island could have been arranged; and will he cause a full inquiry into the circumstances of Mrs. Cromarty's death?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: This case has not previously been brought to my notice, but I am causing inquiries to be made of the local authority, and will communicate the result to the hon. Member.

BREAD AND MILK (FOOD VALUES).

Mr. HURD: 59.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will request the Food Council to turn their attention, not only to the price, but to the comparative food value of various kinds of bread in relation, for instance, to their water content; and to the food value of liquid full-cream milk as compared with imported tinned milk?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Herbert Williams): I will communicate my hon. Friend's suggestions to the Food Council.

Mr. REMER: Will my hon. Friend have an investigation made as to the food value at the same time?

Mr. WILLIAMS: No; it is a matter for the Food Council.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION.

SCHOOL ACCOMMODATION, MITCHAM.

Mr. MELLER: 20.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether his attention has been called to the shortage of school accommodation on the Long Thornton and Commonside estates, Mitcham; if he is aware that there are some hundred children of school age for whom places cannot be found in the
existing schools; and will he urge the education authority to provide temporary school accommodation pending the erection of permanent schools adequate to meet the needs of this rapidly growing district?

Lord E. PERCY: I am aware of the shortage of school accommodation in this area, and I understand that the local education authority are proceeding with the provision of such temporary accommodation as they consider necessary pending the erection of permanent schools.

Mr. MELLER: Does the Noble Lord know that the local education committee has now for some time been preparing temporary accommodation, but that, week by week, the number of children grows and no temporary accommodation appears?

Lord E. PERCY: I am in touch with the local authority about this question, and I am doing all that I can. I think the local education authority is fully impressed with the urgency of the state of affairs in this area. I will do all I can to see that proper provision is made.

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: How long have the local authority and the Board known of the shortage in this area?

Lord E. PERCY: Perhaps the hon. Member does not quite realise the position. This is a rapidly growing area, where new houses are being built continuously, and it is quite impossible for the local education authority or the Board to foresee for any considerable time in advance how many houses are going to be built. They are trying to keep up with the development which is taking place here. It is the same in various other parts of the country. I think they are doing their best.

STEPHENSON MEMORIAL SCHOOL, WILLINGTON QUAY.

Miss BONDFIELD: 25.
asked the President of the Board of Education if he has received complaints concerning the perfunctory nature of the medical inspection at the Stephenson Memorial School, Willington Quay; and if he will call for a medical report on the conditions of malnutrition among children attending that school?

Lord E. PERCY: About three years ago, as a result of representations made by the Board, the local education authority strengthened their staff by appointing an assistant school medical officer. Since then I have received no complaints concerning the perfunctory nature of the medical inspection at this school, but I will make further inquiries and will let the hon. Member know the result. With regard to the second part of the question, two of the Board's medical officers visited this school on 31st January last and found 31 children whose physical condition they considered to be unsatisfactory. I understand that the Lord Mayor's Fund has sent to Wallsend its circular in regard to the feeding of school children.

Miss BONDFIELD: 26.
asked the President of the Board of Education the reason for the delay in attending to requisition forms sent to the Lord Mayor's Fund on behalf of children of families in distress in the Stephenson Memorial School, Willington Quay, three weeks ago and which have not yet been acknowledged?

Lord E. PERCY: I am making inquiries into the matter referred to by the hon. Member and will communicate with her further. I may add that I gather that the Lord Mayor's Fund has distributed a large amount of boots to the school children in Wallsend, and I do not quite know to what these requisitions relate.

SECONDARY SCHOOLS (FREE PLACES).

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 27.
asked the President of the Board of Education how many of the 1,963 children who obtained free places in secondary schools during the year 1927–28 in the West Riding, Yorks, area were originally fee-paying students, and won scholarships during their attendance at secondary schools?

Lord E. PERCY: During the year in question 153 fee-paying pupils attending secondary schools in the West Riding of Yorkshire won scholarships giving them free education. This number is additional to the 1,963 who obtained free places on entrance to the schools.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Does the Noble Lord not think that this is giving children whose parents can afford to pay for them prior to having a scholarship a definite
advantage over children who must continue in attendance at elementary schools?

Lord E. PERCY: I am afraid I cannot quite understand what the hon. Gentleman's question means.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Does the Noble Lord not think that where a child's parents are able to pay for the child at a secondary school prior to winning a scholarship, that child is getting a distinct advantage over the child who has to continue at an elementary school?

Lord E. PERCY: I certainly do not think that where examinations are held the child who has ability to pass the examination should be discriminated against because his parents have happened to—

Mr. WILLIAMS: That child has a secondary school education to start with.

Lord E. PERCY: The hon. Member, I think, has got the wrong end of the stick.

Mr. SPEAKER: I think the hon. Member must put the question down on the Paper.

JUVENILE EMPLOYMENT COMMITTEES.

Mr. KELLY: 24.
asked the President of the Board of Education the number of authorities that have set up Choice of Employment Committees?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Betterton): I have been asked to reply. III local education authorities have set up Juvenile Employment Committees in accordance with Section 107 of the Education Act, 1921.

Mr. KELLY: Does this committee report periodically, and, if so, at what periods; and will such reports be made known to Members of the House?

Mr. BETTERTON: Perhaps the hon. Member will put that question down.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING.

SCOTLAND.

Mr. JAMES STEWART: 66.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of houses built in Scotland with
State assistance to the end of 1928 by local authorities, private enterprise, and public utility societies, respectively, under the Housing Acts, 1919 to 1924?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Major Elliot): The numbers of houses built in Scotland with State assistance, under the Housing Acts of 1919 to 1924, up to the end of 1928, were 67,552 by local authorities, 17,375 by private enterprise, and 578 by public utility societies.

Mr. STEWART: 67.
asked the Secretary of State far Scotland the number of working-class houses built in Scotland since the Armistice, to the end of 1928, without State assistance?

Major ELLIOT: According to the records of the Department of Health for Scotland, the number of working-class houses built in Scotland without State assistance, between the date of the Armistice and the 31st December, 1928, was 10,832.

Mr. R. MORRISON: Has the hon. and gallant Gentleman any information as to whether any of these houses were built for letting purposes, or whether they were all built for sale?

Major ELLIOT: I could not answer that question without notice.

STATISTICS.

Mr. WELLOCK: 28.
asked the Minister of Health the number of houses completed and the number authorised but not completed by local authorities and by private enterprise under the Housing Acts of 1923 and 1924, respectively, in each month from June, 1928, to January, 1929, together with the average price of parlour and non-parlour houses, and the average superficial area for each of these months?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: As the answer involves a tabular statement I will, with the hon. Member's consent, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. WELLOCK: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the output of houses is increasing?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not think it is increasing at this time of year. This is generally the slack time in the building trade.

Following is the answer:

STATEMENT SHOWING PARTICULARS OF PROGRESS, ETC., MADE UNDER THE HOUSING ACTS OF 1923 AND 1924.


Month.
Houses included in schemes under the Housing, etc., Act, 1923.
Houses included in schemes under the Housing (Financial Provisions) Act, 1924.
Average price and area of houses included in contracts let by, or in direct labour schemes of Local Authorities during each month.


Local Authorities.
Private Enterprise.
Local Authorities.
Private Enterprise.
Average Prices.
Average Areas.*


Completed during month.
Authorised but not completed at end of month.
Completed during month.
Authorised but not completed at end of month.
Completed during month.
Authorised but not completed at end of month.
Completed during month.
Authorised but not completed at end of month.
Non-parlour houses.
Parlour houses.
Non-parlour houses.
Parlour houses.


1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.


1926.








£
£
sq. ft.
sq. ft.


June
…
623
8,541
4,309
77,850
4,414
53,220
58
2,224
356
426
767
899


July
…
527
8,304
4,283
78,893
4,553
54,752
42
2,109
366
434
766
923


August
…
482
8,211
4,446
77,080
4,905
53,725
70
2,311
349
417
748
926


September
…
733
8,011
6,325
74,588
5,785
53,504
141
2,185
365
429
773
898


October
…
792
8,236
5,382
72,185
4,475
52,264
110
2,111
369
427
770
921


November
…
370
7,690
3,782
71,935
4,160
52,758
35
2,200
354
417
758
917


December
…
239
7,390
3,632
74,625
3,823
52,092
58
2,628
338
429
736
905


1929.














January
…
71
7,062
3,127
74,115
3,864
53,486
68
2,581
341
422
(a)
(a)


* Columns 12 and 13—Excluding flats.


(a) Information not yet available.

Mr. L'ESTRANGE MALONE: 39.
asked the Minister of Health what statistics he has in his Department concerning the housing requirements of England and Wales; what is the present housing shortage; and by what date, under existing legislation, is it anticipated that the population of England and Wales will be properly housed?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Elaborate statistics dealing with housing conditions are contained in the Census Reports, but I do not think it is practicable to make any reliable estimate of total housing shortage. I do not know what the hon. Member understands by properly housed it is, I think, plain that there can be no fixed standard. I may say, however, that the present annual rate of house construction is very much in excess of normal requirements, and considerable progress is therefore being made towards overtaking arrears.

Mr. THURTLE: Do not the Government regard it as an obligation of honour to provide the people of this country with decent houses?

ALTERNATIVE ACCOMMODATION, ILFORD.

Mr. CRAWFURD: 32.
asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that tenants on the estate at Ilford recently sold, with his consent, by the Corporation of London to Mr. C. H. Lord have, on re-sale of a portion of the property, been provided only with alternative accommodation on one week's notice; and if he proposes to take any action in the matter?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Certain representations have been made to me by the Corporation of London (Ilford Estate) Tenants Association on this subject, and I am in communication with the City Corporation.

ADVANCES.

Mr. SKELTON: 37.
asked the Minister of Health the number of persons who have obtained advances for house construction under Part III of the Housing Act, 1923?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Statistics are not available of the number of persons to whom advances have been made under the
Small Dwellings Acquisition Act, 1899, as amended by Part III of the Housing, etc., Act, 1923. Under these provisions, however, and the somewhat similar provision of Section 92 of the Housing Act, 1925, the loans sanctioned since the Armistice to local authorities for the purpose of making advances, together with direct advances agreed to be made by the London County Council, amounted to about £58,500,000. In addition about £2,500,000 have been advanced by the Birmingham Corporation under special statutory powers.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

SICK LEAVE.

Mr. SNELL: 30.
asked the Minister of Health what was the average number of days of sick leave per head taken in each of the last three years by women clerical officers, writing assistants, and members of the established typing grades, respectively; and what was the number of days of sick leave taken in the case of each of the grades concerned on account of gastric and nervous troubles, respectively, in the Welsh Board of Health and in the office of the Register-General for England?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: As the answer involves a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

The average numbers of days sick leave per head taken in each of the last three years by women clerical officers, writing assistants, and members of the established typing grades in the Welsh Board of Health and in the office of the Registrar-General for England, respectively, were as follows:


Welsh Board of Health.


—
1926.
1927.
1928.


Women Clerical Officers.
6.83
5.75
4.72


Writing Assistants
5.43
8.82
10.47


Established Typing Staff.
3.25
8.3
10.25

Office of the Registrar-General for England.


—
1926.
1927.
1928.


Women Clerical Officers.
10.0
6.7
17.5


Writing Assistants
11.8
18.8
16.7


Established Typing Staff.
16.5
21.6
18.5

I regret that I am unable to give the information asked for in the last part of the question, as it could not be obtained without the expenditure of an undue amount of time and labour.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH (CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS).

Mr. LANSBURY: 34.
asked the Minister of Health whether it is with his sanction and approval that the following prohibitory conditions against conscientious objectors is laid down in the rules and conditions applicable to persons applying for service in the Ministry of Health as housing or town-planning inspector, namely, that no person will be eligible who obtained from any tribunal, established under the Military Service Acts, 1916 to 1918, exemption from service in His Majesty's Forces under those Acts on the ground of a conscientious objection to the undertaking of military service or, although not so exempted, declined to comply with obligations imposed on him, by those Acts; and whether, in view of the fact that many hundreds of men who for conscientious reasons refused to bear arms in any war are at present serving the nation in this House and on many municipal and other elected bodies, and that more than 10 years have passed since the Armistice was signed, he will withdraw the present memorandum and issue instructions that no such clause in future be inserted in such documents?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The memorandum applicable to the post of housing and town-planning inspector was issued with my sanction and approval. The condition to which the hon. Member refers is one which is common to all appointments made to the Civil Service, and was notified, as a Regulation of the Civil Service Commissioners, in the London Gazette, in 1922. I may add that this Regulation was made in consequence of
a recommendation of a Select Committee of this House on the employment of conscientious objectors in the Civil Service, which reported in April, 1922. I am not prepared to withdraw the memorandum or to issue instructions to the effect suggested.

Commander LOCKER-LAMPSON: Ought not men who went to the War always to be preferred before the shirkers and funks?

Mr. LANSBURY: Has the right hon. Gentleman any information as to the last part of the question? In particular, is he aware that the men who so acted did so under a law passed by this House, and therefore that the question of the hon. and gallant Member for Handsworth (Commander Locker-Lampson) does not arise? [Interruption]. Parliament recognised the right of people to say whether they should be murderers or not. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"] After all, some of you were not at the Front. [HON. MEMBERS: "Get on with it!"] Get on with it yourself. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order"] Who are you? [HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"] Who are you? Hold your own tongue.

Mr. SPEAKER: Will the hon. Member please put his next question?

Mr. LANSBURY: I want you to keep the Chief Whip of the Government in order. If the hon. and gallant Member —[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech!"]—controls himself, there will be order in the House.

Mr. SPEAKER: I ask the hon. Member to put his next question.

Mr. LANSBURY: On a point of Order. Have not the Members of this House a right to be protected from the insults and jeers of the Chief Whip of the Government? I only want to say-that I do not object, because I can give him back as good as he gives.

CUSTOMS AND EXCISE DEPARTMENT (PAY).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 46.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how it is that the extra men employed in the Customs and Excise Department outside the London area are only paid from 3s. to 4s. a day with cost-of-living bonus, which varies from 2s. to 2s. 8d. a day for an average daily length of em-
ployment of eight hours; and whether he has considered increasing the pay of these Government employés?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Arthur Michael Samuel): These men are casual workers engaged mainly on watching duties. No difficulty is found in obtaining casual extra men at the ports outside the London postal area at the rates of pay referred to. In view of the nature of the work, there is no reason, in existing circumstances, to alter the range of pay within which these men may be paid according to varying local conditions.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that these men have very responsible duties as excise men and have to be suitably dressed; will he consider increasing their pay?

Mr. SAMUEL: No, Sir. I cannot give any undertaking of that kind. These men are entirely of the unskilled type. We have considered the matter, and we have come to the conclusion that the pay is reasonable and proper.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated that in connection with further Safeguarding Duties extra customs officials would be given employment?

Mr. W. THORNE: rose—

Mr. SPEAKER: Nothing further can arise on the answer that has been given.

Oral Answers to Questions — POOR LAW.

WEST HAM GUARDIANS (LOANS).

Mr. W. THORNE: 33.
asked the Minister of Health the amount of money loaned to the West Ham Board of Guardians for 1921, together with the rate of interest charged; the amount of principal and interest paid by the West Ham Union Poor Law Commissioners since July, 1926, until 30th September, 1928?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No loan was made to these guardians in 1921. The amount of principal and interest paid between July, 1926, and September, 1928, in respect of loans advanced after 1921 was £561,674 13s. 1d.

RELIEF (TEST WORK).

Mr. LANSBURY: 35.
asked the Minister of Health whether his Department has issued instructions, written or oral, to any board of guardians that able-bodied men set to test work shall all be expected to fulfil the same test during any given week, no matter what amount of relief is given; is he aware that some boards of guardians are acting on the assumption that if an applicant is receiving 28s. a week unemployment pay and receives 10s. as Poor Law relief he is expected to perform an exactly similar task, both as to length of time and quantity of work done, as a man who receives a full week's relief of 38s.; and whether he will issue an official order making it clear whether boards of guardians are or are not compelled to force able-bodied applicants for relief to submit to test work, not only in return for relief paid them, but also for the unemployment pay?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The effect of the existing Regulations is correctly stated in the first part of the question, and hoards of guardians who act in the manner suggested in the second part are complying with those Regulations: the test work required has nothing to do with unemployment benefit. The existing Regulations are well understood, and I see no reason for issuing any further Order.

Mr. LANSBURY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the facts are as stated in the question, and that a man who is in receipt, of unemployment benefit is compelled to do test work in connection with it even though he receives only 2s. or 3s. from the guardians? Does he consider that is right? Will he not issue a clear statement, so that boards of guardians may know what they may or may not do?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: As I pointed out in my answer, the question of unemployment benefit has nothing to do with this point. The test is imposed in connection with relief, and not unemployment benefit.

Mr. LANSBURY: But boards of guardians are compelling men who receive — [HON. MEMBERS: "Speech!"] The question I am putting to the right hon. Gentleman is that boards of guardians
are compelling men who receive unemployment pay —[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech!"] You will not shut me up. You may shut up the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but you will not shut me up.

Mr. SPEAKER: I hope the hon. Gentleman will not take up more time than is necessary in putting his question.

Mr. LANSBURY: The question I am putting to the right hon. Gentleman is whether he is aware that boards of guardians are compelling men to do test work for the unemployment benefit pay they receive and for which they have paid their contributions; and I ask him whether, in order that the facts may be made clear, he will issue Regulations, or a Circular, showing what boards of guardians are to do in the matter?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I can only repeat that guardians are not imposing test work in connection with unemployment benefit.

Mr. LANSBURY: But they are. If I give the right hon. Gentleman a case will he look into it?

Mr. KELLY: I would like to ask a question.

Mr. SPEAKER: The Minister has given a definite answer.

Mr. KELLY: It is on a different point altogether.

RIVERS (FLOODING).

Mr. MALONE: 38.
asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the exceptionally cold weather and the freezing of parts of the Thames and other rivers, any steps are being taken to protect the public against the possibility of flooding, such as caused considerable loss of life and disastrous damage last year?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am informed by the Thames Conservancy that necessary measures are being taken, and that there is no reason to expect flooding. I have not information as to other rivers. The Thames flood of last year was due to an exceptional tide.

Oral Answers to Questions — DISTRESSED AREAS.

BOARDS OF GUARDIANS (LOANS).

Mr. MARDY JONES: 42.
asked the Minister of Health how many boards of guardians in the distressed mining areas have sent him resolutions or appeals to the effect that, in view of the unprecedented distress in mining areas through unemployment and the consequent impossibility of recovering the amounts advanced by way of loan in special relief, the Government be urged to take immediate steps to make the loans granted to boards of guardians for the purposes of such relief a national charge; and will he state whether the Government will take action on the lines suggested during this Parliament?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have received 23 resolutions of this kind. The reply to the last part of the question is in the negative.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

IMPERIAL PREFERENCE (EMPIRE SUGAR).

Sir F. SANDERSON: 44.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will consider favourably increasing the preference on Empire-grown sugar by 1s. per cwt., which, whilst not being prejudicial to the consumer at home, would materially assist the growers in the West Indies and other parts of the Empire during the present depression in the sugar-growing industry?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Representations have been made to me on the subject of the preference on Empire saw, but I am not prepared to make any statement at present.

HOLLOW-WARE.

Commander BELLAIRS: 61.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the heavy stocks of enamelled hollowware sent into Great Britain before the imposition of the duty on 13th June last have now been liquidated; and whether he has any information as to the expansion of our home and overseas trade in the second half of 1928 as compared with the first half?

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: I regret that I have no information as to stocks of imported hollow-ware. As regards the second part of the question, the returns
of output which are received from the Wrought Hollow-ware Trade Employers' Association cover about two-thirds of the production of wrought enamelled hollowware. These returns show that the output in the third quarter of 1928 was at a rate nearly 30 per cent. in excess of the average of the first two quarters of that year. I have no information in regard to the remaining concerns which do not furnish returns of output. The tonnage of wrought enamelled hollow-ware exported in the second half of 1928 was 40 per cent. greater than that exported in the first half of that year.

IMPORTED COTTON SHEETING.

Mr. WADDINGTON: 62.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that a Belgian bleached cotton sheet of low quality now being imported into this country has 54 per cent. of starch, china clay, etc., added to the cotton contained in the sheet and that, on a test, one of these sheets, which measured 69½ by 104 inches and weighed two pounds and half an ounce when purchased, was, after being washed, only 63 by 96 inches and only weighed one pound five ounces; and will he take steps to provide that the retail purchaser shall have evidence at the time of purchase of the actual cotton contents and the actual weight of these sheets?

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: I have seen in the Press a statement to the effect of the first part of my hon. Friend's question. It is, I understand, the common practice to size cotton goods. There is no legal provision dealing with the amount of starch, etc., added to cotton goods, and, so far as I am aware, there is no generally recognised standard in the trade. The publicity accorded to my hon. Friend's question will no doubt have a beneficial effect.

Mr. WADDINGTON: Are not these goods, which have been so heavily adulterated, falsely described as cotton, and are not the sellers liable to prosecution under the Merchandise Marks Act?

Mr. WILLIAMS: I shall be glad to look into that point; I could not answer off-hand.

Mr. T. SHAW: Will the hon. Gentleman consider the question of seeing that the consumer is safeguarded against this
adulteration of all kinds of cotton goods, including British?

Mr. HILTON: Would it not be desirable to make some regulation to the effect that the presence of more than, say, 10 per cent. of added material should be brought to the notice of the consumer?

Mr. WILLIAMS: However desirable that might be, it would need legal powers, and such legal powers could not very well be granted until the trade itself had standardised its production.

Mr. HILTON: Is my hon. Friend aware that these sheetings, which are adulterated with as much as 54 per cent. of foreign matter, are being imported at 3d. per yard cheaper than ours?

Mr. MONTAGUE: Have we not, high authority for stating that adulteration is another form of competition?

Commander WILLIAMS: Is my hon. Friend aware that British manufacturers do not adulterate goods to any large extent?

EMPIRE MARKETING BOARD (POSTERS).

Sir NICHOLAS GRATTANDOYLE: 70.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether it is the intention of the Empire Marketing Board to depart from their policy of using only their own hoardings for the exhibition of posters and to avail themselves of the hoardings offered by private contractors for such purposes?

The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. Amery): The Empire Marketing Board have no fixed policy such as is suggested. They have more than once in the past made use of hoardings owned by private contractors and are preparing again to do so this spring in connection with their display at the North-East Coast Exhibition.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Has the attention of the right hon. Gentleman been drawn to the fact that the only questions that are crabbing and criticising the work of the Empire Marketing Board are coming from his own supporters?

EX-MINISTERS (DIRECTORATES).

Mr. WELLOCK: 45.
asked the Prime Minister if he will consider laying down
rules whereby an ex-Minister of the Crown shall be prohibited for a period of years from becoming a director of a company which enjoys a monopoly derived from Acts passed by Governments in which he held office?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): No, Sir. I have no reason to believe that the absence of any such rule as that suggested in the hon. Member's question has caused or is likely to cause any public disadvantage; and, to my mind, it is neither fair nor expedient to endeavour to impose restrictions on personal liberty which are not clearly necessary in the public interest.

Mr. WELLOCK: Is it not the case that this practice is increasing, and that the people of the country are becoming increasingly alarmed in view of the fact that the Government are increasing the habit of handing over to private enterprise important public properties?

Mr. CRAWFURD: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think it was improper when some years ago a Minister of the Crown, who had been engaged in conducting negotiations with a large combine, within a few weeks of the end of those negotiations became chairman of that company?

The PRIME MINISTER: That is an entirely different case from the one in the question asked by the hon. Member, and I do not feel called upon to pronounce upon it.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Is there not a case almost identical with the one referred to by the Prime Minister?

The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot remember one.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE.

ALL-BRITISH ALE (DITTY).

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: 50.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the cost of a rebate of 1d. a pint on all-British home-brewed ale?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I find that it is impossible to give any figure, as the cost would depend upon the proportion of the beer brewed in the future which would be entitled to the rebate. This is too speculative a basis for any estimate.

NATIONAL SAVINGS CERTIFICATES.

Mr. SKELTON: 52.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the number and value of war savings certificates issued as at 31st December, 1924, and 31st December, 1928, respectively, and the total number of persons holding certificates at each date?

Mr. SAMUEL: The value of savings certificates, excluding interest, outstanding on the 31st December, 1924, was £364,365,414, and on the 31st December, 1928, £359,808,029. The number of units outstanding cannot be exactly computed but is in the neighbourhood of 460 million units. No figures are available regarding the number of persons holding certificates.

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: 53.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether it is proposed to present any further Supplementary Estimates: and, if so, for what services?

Mr. SAMUEL: Yes, Sir. I am not in a position to make a complete statement, but Supplementary Estimates will be necessary for further grants to the Lord Mayor's Fund and for relief in distressed mining areas in Scotland. There will also be supplementary payments in respect of transferred civil servants in the Irish Free State required in pursuance of the agreement announced yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs. There may also be other matters which may require Supplementary Estimates this year.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us whether we shall have a Supplementary Estimate in connection with what are known as the Irish loyalists?

Mr. SAMUEL: I cannot say.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE.

WIRES AND CABLES (ASSESSMENT).

Mr. HURD: 51.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether, as a promise was made by the Treasury to the Central Valuation Committee that the rateable position of Post Office overhead and underground wires and cables should
be investigated, he will say what is being done in the matter; and whether meanwhile the assessments of other electrical properties are being raised under the Act of 1926?

Mr. SAMUEL: This matter has been carefully considered. The Central Valuation Committee have been informed that the Government are not prepared to alter the existing arrangements as regards Post Office wires and cables. I have no information as to the assessment of other electrical properties.

Mr. HURD: Does that mean that Government property is in an exceptionally preferential position as compared with other property?

Mr. SAMUEL: It is a practice which has been referred to in Debates in Parliament on many occasions, and it has been in operation for the last 60 years.

Mr. HURD: Is that not a reason why it should be discontinued?

Mr. SAMUEL: My hon. Friend might raise the question on the Post Office Vote.

TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE SERVICES.

Commander BELLAIRS: 68.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that, in Section 66 of the Hardman-Lever Report of 1927, the committee unanimously advised that the possibility of the complete fusion of the telegraph, cable, wireless, and telephone services might with advantage be explored; and whether it is the intention of the Government to obtain the evidence of officials of American companies?

Captain BOWYER (Lord of the Treasury): I have been asked to answer this question. The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, and to the second part in the negative.

Commander BELLAIRS: 69.
asked the Postmaster-General, in view of the loss of £1,300,000 or more per annum on the inland telegraphs, whether he is aware that the Hardman-Lever Committee of 1927 were not permitted to consider the aspect of transfer to private enterprise; and whether, as the situation has been changed by recent legislation transferring the external wires to the new Communications Company, the Government will
open negotiations on similar lines with that company in regard to the remaining inland telegraphs?

Captain BOWYER: Yes, Sir, but the circumstances under which certain overseas services are to be transferred to a communications company have no analogy in the case of the inland service; and the reply to the latter part of the question is in the negative.

Mr. PALING: In view of the supposed advantages to be gained by transferring State services to private enterprise, will the hon. and gallant Gentleman consult the hon. and gallant Member for Maidstone (Commander Bellairs) about selling the Navy?

WEIGHTS AND SCALES.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 70.
asked the Postmaster-General whether weights and scales in post offices are subjected to tests by officials of his Department; and, if so, at what intervals?

Captain BOWYER: Weights and scales which are the property of the Post Office are tested by officers of the Department twice a year at head and branch post offices and one a year at sub-offices. Additional tests are made at any time if there is reason to think that the weights or scales are inaccurate.

OFFICIAL PUBLICATIONS (ADVERTISEMENTS).

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: 54.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether advertisers are canvassed direct by officials of the Stationery Office for advertisements in Parliamentary and official publications or whether advertisements are sought through the medium of an outside agency?

Mr. SAMUEL: There are no advertisements in Parliamentary publications. Advertisements in other Government publications are obtained under both methods.

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: 55.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the amount of revenue received in the year 1926 as the result of advertisements in Parliamentary and official publications?

Mr. SAMUEL: The gross receipts in respect of advertisements in official publications amounted to £131,922 in the calendar year 1928. Of this total £110,257 was received in respect of advertisements in telephone directories.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE.

Sir HARRY HOPE: 56.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of the repeated outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease and the loss thereby caused to agricultural interests and to the national Exchequer, he can take steps to secure that hay and straw, as packing materials, coming from countries where the disease is known to exist shall be discontinued?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Guinness): No outbreaks in recent years have been attributed to imported hay and straw used as packing materials. My hon. Friend's proposal was fully considered by the Departmental Committee on Foot-and-Mouth Disease, who in their Report issued in 1925 stated that to impose a prohibition or to require the destruction at the port of all hay and straw used as packing materials would involve an interference with our overseas trade in the many articles habitually packed in hay and straw of such a far-reaching character as could only be justified by an overwhelming case. I concur with the Committee in thinking that there is no evidence which would justify such a prohibition.

Sir H. HOPE: Has the Minister of Agriculture considered that, if an alternative packing material were used that was free from risk of contamination such as wood wool and other things of that kind, this end would be secured?

Mr. GUINNESS: A Committee has gone into that question, and they found that there was no evidence of outbreaks around towns where this packing material was likely to cause danger, and until we have some evidence we really could not justify putting our industrial production to the inconvenience of such a regulation.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the Irish
Free State there is this prohibition of hay and straw as packing material, and that it has been very successful in keeping out foot-and-mouth disease?

Mr. GUINNESS: I speak subject to correction, but I think there is a regulation in the United States, in Canada, the Irish Free State and other countries imposing an obligation to destroy, or to import with certificates of disinfection, and that is a different matter. I do not think we can impose such a regulation without evidence.

SMALL HOLDINGS.

Mr. SKELTON: 57.
asked the Minister of Agriculture the number of small holdings and cottage holdings, respectively, constructed and in course of construction under the Small Holdings Act, 1926; and the number of schemes submitted to, but not approved, by the Ministry of Agriculture?

Mr. GUINNESS: Sixty-five schemes submitted by councils under Section 2 of the Act of 1926 have been, or are likely to be, carried into effect. These schemes provide for the formation of 223 small holdings and 23 cottage holdings. There are three other schemes under consideration, and one scheme was not approved. The above figures relate exclusively to fresh acquisitions, and not to the improvement of existing holdings, in regard to which a considerable number of proposals have been submitted under Subsection (5) of Section 2. In a few instances councils have carried out self-supporting schemes which do not require to be submitted to the Ministry, but I have no information as to the number of holdings thereby created.

Mr. RILEY: Was it not the expectation of the Government in regard to this Act that 2,000 new holdings might be established in each year; are not the numbers now given to be regarded as utterly inadequate to meet the purpose of the Act; and are any steps taken to press the councils to make the Act more widely known?

Mr. GUINNESS: It is quite true that we made financial provision for a much larger number of holdings, and I agree that the response that the local authorities have made to their opportunities is disappointing; but the State has offered
75 per cent. of the cost of these holdings, and I think that from the financial point of view we have made a very generous provision.

Mr. RILEY: In view of this unsatisfactory progress, is the Ministry doing anything to urge the councils to get down to work?

Mr. GUINNESS: We do everything in our power to encourage local authorities to provide these holdings, and are giving them all the assistance that we can.

Mr. PALING: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many of the holdings constructed, or in course of construction, are in actual occupation?

Mr. GUINNESS: I could not say without notice.

AIR SERVICES (CEYLON).

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 58.
asked the Secretary of State for Air whether, having regard to the importance of Colombo as the capital of a colony of industrial importance, the question of linking up the colony with the air route to Australia has been considered; and what progress, if any, is being made in the scheme of a Bombay-Colombo air service?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Philip Sassoon): I understand that the question of linking up Colombo with the proposed trunk air line across India to Rangoon and beyond has been considered by the Government of India, but progress cannot be made with such a scheme pending the inauguration of the main route.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Does my hon. and gallant Friend realise that there is a very strong feeling in Ceylon on this matter, and will he do what he can to see that there is such a linking up?

Sir P. SASSOON: It is mainly a question for the Government of India, and they are fully alive to the importance of the matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — MERCANTILE MARINE.

LIFEBOATS.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: 60.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what steps are taken by his Department to
ensure that only the best workmanship and material are used in the lifeboats supplied to merchant naval ships and cargo vessels?

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: All lifeboats, whether for passenger or cargo vessels, are inspected in the course of construction at the boatbuilders' works by Board of Trade surveyors, who have to be satisfied as to the quality of the material and workmanship.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: What is done after they have been in use for some time?

Mr. WILLIAMS: They are repeatedly inspected by the surveyors.

Loss OF SAILING VESSEL "GUNGA HOSSEINI."

Dr. DRUMMOND SHIELS: 63.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been called to the case of the sailing vessel "Gunga Hosseini" which was sunk on or about 16th June last year by the steamship "Clan Lindsay"; and if, seeing that it is alleged that the officers of the "Clan Lindsay" on duty did not stop the ship, made no inquiry as to the results of the collision, that 10 of the crew of 22 were drowned, and that the evidence of the survivors was not heard at the court of inquiry in Colombo, he will now order a full inquiry, where the facts could be ascertained and the evidence of the survivors of the crew heard?

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: The answer is rather long but, with the permission of the House, I will read it.
The findings of the Court at Colombo which inquired into this casualty last June were as follows:

"1. The cause or causes which led to the collision between the s.s. 'Clan Lindsay' and the dhow 'Gunga Hossein' at about 4 a.m. on 16th June, 1928, was the omission by the said dhow to carry regulation lights.
2. The collision was not due to any act or default on the part of any of the officers or crew of the ship.
3. Sufficient diligence was exercised by the officer of the watch or any other officer or man of the ship, and had the dhow exhibited regulation lights its presence would have been detected in time to avoid the collision.
4. The second officer was guilty of negligence in not reporting the occurrence to the captain forthwith.
1307
5. The chief officer was guilty of negligence in not reporting the occurrence to the captain forthwith.
6. The said negligence was not of such a degree as to justify the cancellation or suspension of the certificates of either the second officer or chief officer."
The attention of the Board of Trade was called to this case at the time, and an application was made to the Department to order a rehearing. After careful consideration the Board came to the conclusion that the case was not one in which they should order a rehearing, as the finding of the Court was not contradicted in any material particular by the depositions of the survivors of the sailing vessel, and there was no reason to think that the finding would have been materially different had the witnesses from the sailing vessel been available.

Dr. SHIELS: In view of the fact that considerations of British justice and humanity are involved in this matter, would the hon. Gentleman's Department be prepared to consider representations from responsible bodies in Ceylon, either in regard to the statement which he has just made or in regard to other evidence which was not available at the inquiry?

Mr. WILLIAMS: Naturally, we shall be prepared to receive any representations, but, having regard to the fact that full depositions were taken from all the survivors, I think that the causes of the accident are quite clear, and I do not think that any grave blame is to be imputed to anyone for the loss of life suffered.

Dr. SHIELS: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the dhow was washed ashore—

Mr. SPEAKER: A very full answer has been given.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

EX-SERVICE MEN (TUBERCULOSIS).

Dr. SHIELS: 64.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he can give any figures as to the number of tuberculous ex-service men, apart from those on the registers of the Ministry of Pensions, in Scotland and in the Lothians area?

Major ELLIOT: The information desired is not available, and could be ob-
tained only by special researches on the part of local authorities, and my right hon. Friend is not satisfied that the labour involved would be justified.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

EXCHANGE FACILITIES.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 71.
asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that there is an Employment Exchange box at each principal dock at Hull for the men to sign at, but that on Friday afternoons all the staff are taken away to assist the Employment Exchange, and dockers, in consequence, have to leave the docks to sign, and often lose work on a ship as a result; and whether some arrangements can be made to obviate the closing of these boxes on Friday afternoons?

Mr. BETTERTON: I have no information to show that the present arrangements have resulted in men losing work on a ship. Those arrangements have, however, recently been under review, and I will see that in considering any new arrangements which may be proposed the point made by the hon. and gallant Member is not lost sight of.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this means that the men have to go about six miles to the Exchange and back, and that, while doing this, they do, and must, lose jobs?

Mr. BETTERTON: The hon. and gallant Member may remember that he raised various points in connection with this matter a short time ago. The whole situation, including the points he then raised and the points which he now raises, are under consideration, and I will let him know the result.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 72.
asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that on the 14th February last over 1,000 men attended at the Hull Employment Exchange in the open in the early morning in the hope of getting work at snow clearing; that some took their places in the queue at 3 a.m., and at 4.15 a.m. 200 men were waiting, one of whom collapsed in the snow and was taken away by the police to warmth and shelter; that at 6.45 a.m. word was given
that no men were wanted; that men are required to attend at 5.30 a.m. if they want work; and whether some better arrangement can be made for engaging casual labour?

Mr. BETTERTON: I am having inquiries made and will let the hon. and gallant Member know the result.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: As the matter is urgent, will the hon. Gentleman inquire whether the men cannot be asked to attend later during the continuance of this weather so as to avoid these hardships?

Mr. BETTERTON: I am inquiring into the whole of the case. As the hon. and gallant Gentleman knows, we only received notice of this question the other day, and these inquiries are necessary before I can give an answer.

Mr. W. THORNE: 73.
asked the Minister of Labour whether his attention has been called to the insufficient accommodation at Bury St. Edmunds Employment Exchange, which necessitates a long queue waiting outside in order that the unemployed can sign on; and whether he intends taking any action in the matter?

Mr. BETTERTON: I am having inquiry made and will communicate the result to the hon. Member.

VACANCIES (EXCHANGE INFORMATION).

Mr. W. THORNE: 74.
asked the Minister of Labour if his attention has been called to the decision of the umpire in connection with the case of the young girl residing in Wales who was instructed to accept a situation in London, but was prevented from doing so by her father in consequence of the local Exchange officials refusing information as to the name and address and nature of the business of the firm; and if he will state whether such instructions have been issued to local Exchange officials?

Mr. BETTERTON: The instruction is that these particulars should be given when asked for. I am making inquiry into the case referred to in the question.

BENEFIT DISALLOWED.

Mr. LANSBURY: 75.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he will inform the House on what information or
evidence the authorities at the Hackney Employment Exchange in October last informed Mr. Plant, of 517, Old Ford Road, Bow, that he was not genuinely seeking work after he had received six weeks' unemployment pay; and will he give the House this man's industrial history so far as it is known in his Department?

Mr. BETTERTON: I am having inquiry made in this case and will let the hon. Member know the result.

Mr. LANSBURY: I should like to give the hon. Gentleman notice that I shall raise this question during the discussion on the Vote on Wednesday next.

APPEALS.

Mr. WELLOCK: 77.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of appeals brought before courts of referees last October and the number in which benefit was recommended; and the corresponding figures for January of this year?

Mr. BETTERTON: During the five weeks ended 12th November, 1928, 21,080 appeals were considered by Courts of Referees in Great Britain and of this number 8,584 were recommended for allowance. In the five weeks ended 14th January, 1929, 23,232 appeals were considered, and 10,052 were recommended for allowance.

BANKS (ALIEN EMPLOYES).

Mr. R. MORRISON: 76.
asked the Minister of Labour how many aliens have been admitted during the past four years in order to take up employment in banks?

Mr. BETTERTON: Separate figures as to the number of aliens admitted for employment in banks are not available.

ELECTRICITY SUPPLIES (RURAL AREAS).

Rear-Admiral SUETER: 78.
asked the Minister of Transport whether in view of the information contained in the eighth annual Report of the Electricity Commissioners recently issued, any steps can be taken to speed up the supply of cheap current to rural areas if he will state when he anticipates electricity will be available to rural areas within a 50-mile radius of London; and whether he has a representative of his Department who
has the sole duty of pressing forward the development of electricity for rural areas?

Colonel ASHLEY: The general question to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers has engaged my special attention, and, so far as my Department and the Electricity Commissioners are concerned, all, possible steps will continue to be taken to expedite the supply of electricity to rural areas. Much expansion has occurred in the last two or three years. As regards the London area, the whole of it, with the exception of a few parishes in the South, is either already covered by statutory powers for the supply of electricity or by applications which are now before the Commissioners for such powers. I should expect that electricity will be available throughout this district within the next three or four years. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.

Lord APSLEY: What price per unit is being permitted?

Colonel ASHLEY: I cannot possibly answer that question without notice.

BRITISH ARMY (FUEL AND LIGHT ALLOWANCES).

Mr. KELLY: 80.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether the fuel and light allowances to officers and men in the Army have received consideration, has any revision taken place; and, if so, will he give details of these allowances, showing any increase which has been made?

Mr. PENNY (Lord of the Treasury): I have been asked to reply. The cash allowances issued for fuel and light are reviewed quarterly. I am sending the hon. Member a copy of the last two Army Orders announcing the rates from 1st February and for the previous three months respectively.

Mr. KELLY: Do these new rates mean an increase or a decrease?

Mr. PENNY: If the hon. Member reads carefully the particulars which are being sent to him, he will find out.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD: Will the Prime Minister be good enough to tell us what business will be taken next week?

The PRIME MINISTER: On Monday: Local Government (Scotland) Bill, Committee (9th allotted day).

Tuesday: Unemployment Insurance (Northern Ireland Agreement), Money Resolution, Committee; Pensions (Governors of Dominions, etc.) Bill, Second Reading; Indian High Courts Bill, Second Reading. At half-past seven, Private Business, the London Traffic Bills.

Wednesday: Civil and Revenue Departments Vote on Account, Committee stage. A Debate will take place on the Ministry of Labour Estimate.

Thursday: It is proposed to move Mr. Speaker out of the Chair on the Army Estimates and consider Votes A, 1, 10, 13, 14, 15, and a Supplementary Estimate in Committee.

The business for Friday will be announced late.

If there is time on any day other Orders will be taken.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask what is the Supplementary Estimate which is on the Paper?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am afraid I cannot say.

Mr. STEPHEN: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any indication when the Supplementary Estimate that was withdrawn will be taken again?

The PRIME MINISTER: Well, there does not seem to be a day provided for Supplementary Estimates here. I should think that it would be some time after these Orders have been disposed of.

Mr. STEPHEN: Does that mean that as yet the Cabinet have not come to any agreement with regard to what they are going to do in the matter.

The PRIME MINISTER: The Cabinet is always in agreement.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to,—

Superannuation (Diplomatic Service) Bill, without Amendment.

Consolidation Bills,—That they propose that the Joint Committee appointed to consider all Consolidation. Bills in the present Session, which are not Private Bills, do meet in Committee Room C, House of Lords, on Wednesday next, at half-past Eleven o'clock.

CONSOLIDATION BILLS.

So much of the Lords Message as relates to Consolidation Bills considered.

Ordered, That the Committee appointed by this House do meet the Lords Committee as proposed by their Lordships.— [Sir George Hennessy.]

Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

STANDING ORDERS.

Resolutions reported from the Select Committee:

1. "That, in the case of the Winchester Water and Gas Bill, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with: —That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill.
2. That, in the case of the Barmouth Urban District Council Bill, Petition for leave to dispense with Standing Order 123 in the case of the Petition of 'David Ellis Davies' against the Bill, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with."

Resolutions agreed to.

Orders of the Day — LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL.

Considered in Committee. [Progress 20th February.]

[7TH ALLOTTED DAY.]

[Mr. DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 33.—(Adjustments as to rating relief between landlord and tenants.)

Sir ROBERT HAMILTON: I beg to move, in page 32, to leave out from the word "heritages," in line 39, to the word "shall," in line 41.
The Clause, as amended, would read:
Every occupier of agricultural lands and heritages shall be entitled, on any rate becoming due in respect of such lands and heritages to recover from the owner thereof by retention out of rent or otherwise a sum equal to the amount of the owner's share of such rate multiplied by two and one-half.
I do not propose to move the second Amendment which stands in the name of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair) who I regret is not able to be present to-day—in page 33, line 3, after the word "rate," insert the words: "as is levied in the first complete year after the passing of this Act." The intention of the Amendment which I have pleasure in moving is to take out of the Bill the limitation as it stands and to give to all tenants the full benefit of rate relief provided by the Clause. The position in Scotland is different from the position in England, where the occupier pays the whole of the rates, and it is owing to this difference that difficulties have arisen in the Scottish Bill in endeavouring to see that in the farming part of industry the tenant gets the full benefit of the de-rating. From the discussions that have already taken place, the Government will he well aware that the Opposition are not satisfied that the benefits which go to industry under this Bill are ail going to the right quarter. Although the tenant farmers will benefit materially at the outset, in the course of time the benefit will run off and the major part of what we call the subsidy that is going to industry will go to the landlords, who are not the important
part of the industry. We want to see the tenant farmers getting the full benefits to which they are contributing.
The case has been argued already, but we cannot emphasise too much the actual position of affairs. At the end of seven years, under the Bill, the major benefits of de-rating will go directly to the landlords, and the object of the Amendment is to secure that, as far as possible, and as long as possible the occupier of the land shall retain the benefits given in the Bill. I realise the difficulties that must occur when there comes a break in the lease. There is difficulty in securing that the benefit that is paid to the landlord shall be passed on to the tenant. The Amendment would provide that every occupier of land should continue to have passed on to him his share of whatever benefit goes to the owner. It is admitted that rents go up and that the value of land must increase when burdens are taken off the land. I do not argue that all the landlords will take advantage under the Bill and put up the rents, but we must admit that when burdens are taken off land the land is able to stand a heavier rent and, in the ordinary course of things, the tenant will be asked to pay heavier rent.
I have had inquiries made in Scotland, and I find that that is already being done where breaks have occurred in tenancies. I have had an instance quoted to me where the rent was 21 shillings an acre, and it has already gone up to 27 shillings an acre, directly in consequence of this Bill. When we see that sort of thing occurring, it is perfectly obvious that the benefits which the Bill intended to confer on the tenants are not going in the right direction. If we had land courts to consider the question of fair rents and the relationships between landlord and tenant, the matter would be simpler. That question will be raised on a later Amendment. Here, we have to consider the ordinary relations between the tenant farmer and the landlord.
I will quote some simple instances, in figures which divide easily, which will show how the thing works out. Take a farm with a rental of £240, with rates of 10s. in the pound, half the rates being paid by the owner and half by the occupier. The owner at present pays on 75 per cent. of the rental, namely, £180, at
five shillings, which amounts to £45. The occupier pays on 25 per cent. of the rental, namely, £60, at five shillings, which amounts to £15. In future, both the owner and the occupier will pay on one-eighth of the rental which will mean payment on £30, at five shillings, amounting to £7 10s. The owner's relief will be £37 10s. less the one-half which he has to return to the occupier, namely, £18 15s., which leaves £18 15s. The occupier's relief is £7 10s., plus the one-half which he is to receive from the land-lord, namely, £18 15s., making a total of £26 5s., with the result that the occupier receives £11 5s. when the liability for rates has been discharged. That is only temporary. At the end of his lease, or when a break comes, the occupier will, pay one-eighth on his rental. If his rental remained the same, he would pay £7 10s., 'but we have to remember that he is contributing very largely by means of the Petrol Duty towards the raising of the money which relieves him. Instances have been quoted by the National Farmers' Union of Scotland from which it would appear that a farmer will be paying actually more by way of Petrol Duty than he will receive by way of benefit under the de-rating scheme.
This Amendment is designed, as far as possible, to ensure that the benefit which the farmer is going to get at first shall be continued. The owner-occupier gets the full benefit of de-rating, and in the case which I have quoted his full benefit will be £37 10s., plus £7 10s., totalling £45. To an owner-occupier who, unfortunately, as happened in many cases in Scotland, bought at unreasonably high prices after the War, that relief will be of undoubted benefit. The owner-occupiers represent a considerable percentage of the farmers of Scotland, but we have to bear in mind that the percentage is only about 20 per cent., so that we have still 80 per cent. of the tenant farmers to consider. The whole of the de-rating may be considered in the nature of a subsidy to the agricultural industry, and it is our desire on these benches to see that that subsidy goes to the quarter where it will be most beneficial. What we foresee is that a large portion of the subsidy will, eventually not go into that quarter, but into a quarter which is not the active partner in the
farming industry. The case for the Amendment is self-evident, and I do not think it is necessary for me to argue it further.

4.0 p.m.

The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. William Watson): As the hon. Baronet has already observed in moving the Amendment, this mattes has been very considerably canvassed already, to some extent yesterday and also on Second Reading, and, therefore, I do not propose to detain the Committee very long. I cannot help thinking that there is a wrong principle altogether in this Amendment. The view the Government take is this—I know that many hon. Members opposite do not agree with it—that, in the first place, the landlord has already been recognised under the Acts of 1923 and 1926 as a partner in the industry; secondly, that as the tenant at the present moment is paying only on one-quarter of his annual value, it is impossible in practice to give relief to him in the tenant's share of the rates to such an extent as to bring the measure of relief to the agricultural industry up to anything like the amount it is getting in England under the different system of payment of rates. That being so, we take the view that the landlord ought to get further relief to such an extent as will bring the total relief to the agricultural industry to something equivalent, in fact, a trifle better, perhaps, than what the same industry is getting in England. Consequently, we propose that both the landlord and the tenant shall be rated at only one-eighth of their valuation.
We further thought that as in the case of existing leases and existing tenancies the arrangements for such tenancies had been made in ignorance of this new condition of enlarged measure of relief, it would be fair that some reduction in the rent standing at the present time should be given to the parties in that situation. Therefore, we have provided in the Bill that, during the currency of existing leases, and for a period of seven years in the case of a tacit relocation, and year to year tenancies and smallholders, that the landlord shall pay over, or the tenant shall be able by retention out of his rent to secure, half of the landlord's relief. Observe that our reason for giving that is because we think the rent should be reduced to that extent by reason of the
altered circumstances. That is the broad principle and the broad reason for which we are making that provision, and, clearly, if that is the ground, it would be quite wrong to make perpetual the handing over from the landlord to the tenant. That should only last until the parties are free, in the full knowledge of the new conditions, to make such new bargain as they can come to. That principle, of course, is entirely inconsistent with this Amendment.
I want, for a moment, to consider what is the principle of this Amendment. Its promoters look upon it, as far as I can understand, as being a relief from rates to which the tenant is entitled, and the result of the Amendment would be that the tenant in perpetuity would not only be paying no rates at all, and have no interest in the local government in his area, but he would be receiving a fixed sum in addition as a relief from rates over and above. He would not only be totally de-rated, but he would get as it were some of the rates into his own pocket. I cannot understand the sense or the logic of any such suggestion. There is this further remark to make, and it has been stated before. The hon. Baronet the Member for Caithness (Sir A. Sinclair) stated yesterday:
The whole benefit of rating relief will go, must go, over a course of years, and by the operation of the economic law of rent, to the benefit of one partner in the agricultural industry."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th February, 1929; col. 12:35, Vol. 225.]
If that be so, what is the use of this Amendment? What difference does it make whether you have it or not. It does not seem to me if that is the view that is held, that hon. Members can in any way support the proposal. For the reasons I have given I much prefer the proposal of the Government which says that in so far as it can fairly be suggested that the parties existing in the relationship of landlord and tenant have made their mutual obligations in ignorance of the increased measure of relief, that should be put right as long as the mutual obligations exist, but as those obligations come to an end, the parties are free, with full knowledge of the condition of things, to make a fresh bargain. But, even under this proposal, they will be free with full knowledge. They would both know if the Amendment went through that there was a perpetual
obligation on the landlord to hand over one-half of his share of the relief in rates to the tenant. Is it suggested that that is not going to be taken into account in fixing the rent? Then what is the use of doing it? There are sound reason, common sense and fairness in the Government's decision, and, as at present advised, I can see no advantage or good reason for the Amendment.

Mr. JOHNSTON: The plain fact, as I understand it, about this Amendment is that the hon. Gentleman who moved it desires that there should be no limitation as to date. In the Clause as it stands, it is provided that one-half of the landlord's relief shall go to the tenant under existing leases only, and that in fresh leases the landlord shall be entitled to retain whatever he possibly can out of the relief. That does not apply, as the right hon. Gentleman is aware, to other beneficiaries under the Government scheme. The whole of the relief to industrial landlords has to be passed on, as in the case of docks—

Captain FANSHAWE: And royalty owners.

Mr. JOHNSTON: — —duing the currency of existing leases. I hope the hon. and gallant Member will be able to appreciate the distinction before this Debate is over. The docks are compelled to hand over the relief which they secure under this Bill. In the case of agricultural property, however, the landlord is to be compelled to hand over only one-half of, shall I call it, his share of the swag during the currency of an existing lease. After the existing lease—and the Lord Advocate is aware that leases are falling in every day, and most of them will fall in within seven years' time—the landlord will be able to secure the entire benefit of this de-rating.

The LORD ADVOCATE: His share.

Mr. JOHNSTON: I will go further than the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and say that he will be able to extract the tenant's share in the form of increased rent.

The LORD ADVOCATE: And vice versa.

Mr. JOHNSTON: That may be. It all depends whether rents are rising or falling. I would point out that rents have
been rising in Scotland since the Armistice, and I, for one, do not believe that rents are in the least likely to fall in the face of this subsidy of £1,000,000 per annum to the industry. On the contrary, the tendency will always be for rents to rise. Who are the people who know most about the facts? Obviously, the organised farmers, the gentlemen who call themselves the Farmers' Union of Scotland. I know that the Lord Advocate, or some other member of the Government, will say that there is no evidence that previous relief of rates to the agricultural industry has resulted in increased rent. I have even heard it argued that relief to agriculture in the past has actually meant decreased rent. I was so amazed at that that I asked the Farmers' Union of Scotland if they could give me specific instances to justify their view that rents would rise as a result of this Measure, and I have got some of these instances here. I will give the Lord Advocate the details later if he wants them. I will confine myself to saying that it is the opinion of the executive of the National Farmers Union of Scotland, representing the farmers in Scotland, that the power given to the landlord under this Measure will mean ultimately an increase in land rent.
An increase in land rent will not benefit agriculture. I can understand increased benefits to the producer of the soil. I can understand and support relief to the actual producers in agriculture, but I cannot understand, after all these years of experience, a deliberate policy of handing over £770,000 per Annum to the landlords in Scotland—it is the Government's own estimate—and only £110,000 to the farmers in Scotland. It is quite true that provision is made for one-half of that £770,000 to return to the farmers. That still leaves the landlords with half of the £770,000 as a clear gift to them, and the possibility, if we put it no higher, that they will be able, by one channel or another, to retain the other half of the £770,000. I go further and say that, in the course of time, they will extract from the farmers that additional benefit of £110,000 which the farmers, obviously, in the first instance, are to receive under this Bill. For these reasons, we propose to support
the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Sir R. Hamilton), because that specifically deletes the limiting phrase in Clause 33, which says that half the relief shall go to tenants only under existing leases. We desire that those limiting words should be removed, and that the entire benefits should go to the active producers, the farmers, and not to the useless burden on the wheel of the machine, the landlords of Scotland.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: The Debate on this Amendment has the usual atmosphere of unreality. Hon. Members opposite seem to be living in the days of a century ago; they do not seem to have any knowledge or appreciation of the state of land ownership in Scotland at the present time. They raise all the old ancient bogies of 100 years ago, and picture the agricultural landlord as a kind of Jewish Isaac Gordon who is bleeding the tenant farmer white. Nothing is further from the truth. The landlords of Scotland have not many votes, and it is very easy to denounce them and try to make party capital, but at the same time, justice should be done to even the smallest class in the country, however unpopular they may be. Hon. Members opposite seem to associate in their minds rural landlords with town landlords, but the former are in a totally different position, and take a very different view of their duties and obligations to town landlords. In the country estates in Scotland, you will find that the same families have rented and farmed the same land for hundreds of years. I could give instances of a number of farmers in my own parish of origin whose ancestors have been on the same farm for centuries. When times were good they paid their rent, and when times were had they were treated with much consideration by the landlord. Really, they and their landlords are in the position almost of being members of one clan, one community. The hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Johnston) said that rents were rising.

Mr. JOHNSTON: I said since the Armistice.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: They are not rising, and they have not risen since the Armistice. Rents in Scotland have fallen since 1879.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Surely it is common knowledge that after the Corn Production Act rents in Scotland soared, in some cases over 200 per cent.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: No, Sir. That is not the case. There were a, number of landowners who found the burden and responsibility too great for them, not having much capital resources to sustain the land they had, and they took the opportunity of selling their land at high prices. Very high prices were paid, and I am sorry for these gentlemen who bought at these high prices. They trusted in the Corn Production Act, and in so doing they simply trusted the British Government, and it is the British Government that has let them down, not the landowners of Scotland. The real position is that land in Scotland is very much in the same position as land in England. The return upon it is very poor. There is no more unremunerative subject than a parcel of land especially if it is left to agricultural tenants. The suggestion here that the inevitable economic law will take place is all very well, but it does not work out in effect. It is all very well in theory. It is like Ricardo's theory of rent which pictures the cultivators always seeking the more fertile land, whereas in fact they do nothing of the kind, but stay as near where they are born as possible. An apparent difference between English and Scottish tenants has been pointed out by that body which issues innumerable circulars, the Farmers Union of Scotland, the most diligent body in propaganda I have ever known. The secretary is a legal gentleman who believes in proper propaganda. The point he makes is that at the conclusion of seven years, during which the tenant gets half the relief given to the landlord, the landlord in Scotland need not do anything except simply sit still and the rent will remain the same, the landlord will get the benefit,while in England he will have to actually raise the rent.
The economic theory is that if the land of Scotland was suddenly to become infinitely more valuable owing to improved methods of agriculture, or greater scientific knowledge, or the development of electrical power, if it suddenly quadrupled in value as an agricultural subject that there would be great competition for it, and, therefore, rents would rise.
But such a rise would have nothing to do with the incidence of the rates. Who should get such an increase in value of the land? Is it the man who pays the rent or the man who owns the land; the man who has sunk his capital in if? It may be said that capitalists are useless persons, but a capitalist must have been useful at some time or other, otherwise he would not have obtained his capital. But suppose matters remain exactly as they are, that the rent and value of land remain precisely as they are to-day, then on the conclusion of the lease the parties will begin to bargain. The tenant will go to the landlord and producing his account book, will show that he has had a struggle to make a, profit, and he will say to his landlord, "Well, sir. You have at last got this abatement on your rates. Possibly you can take less rent." If the tenant has been there for centuries there is not the slightest doubt that the reasonable Scottish landlord, the agricultural landlord, will make some concession to such a tenant. In the main, landlords and tenants are on good terms with one another. They have to live together. I remember the case of a revivalist preacher who came from my own native village. He was preaching on the text of the importunate creditor; the man who called for his rent.

Mr. J. BROWN: There is no such a thing in the Scriptures.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Perhaps I am not using the exact phrase, but that was the theme of his discourse. I said to him afterwards, "Do you not realise that the roof of the house and the house itself were the result of the landlord's efforts? Surely he must get something for it, and if the tenant was not paying something the landlord was in an unfortunate position." Agricultural land is in a totally different position from house property. It is there by the hand of the Almighty. Rents have fallen so much in the last two generations that it can almost be said that there is not a farmer except in the fertile parts of the Lothians in Scotland who is paying rent for his land as land. The only people who are paying rent for their land are the Scottish crofters; and their rents were fixed long ago when rents were paid for land. The agricultural farmer in nearly all the
places in Scotland is not paying a return, or more than a comparatively moderate return, on the capital that hag been expended on his land, his tenements and buildings. There is nothing for the land itself at all. If you go to Canada or America and try to get a farm you will have to pay far more for the land than you pay in Scotland. Land in Scotland is moderately rented, and, therefore, I think the Amendment is very unreal. If the landlord is the rapacious person whom the disordered imagination of hon. Members opposite pictures, there will be nothing whatever to hinder him at the conclusion of a lease saying to the tenant, "Now, sir. I have to hand over to you for all time and in perpetuity the whole of this relief that has been given to me by this Bill and, consequently, I propose to raise your rent by that amount or more." It would be perfectly within his power to do that, and nothing in this Amendment would prevent it. It does not, however, work out in practice like that, because landlords in Scotland do not exact such terms, and I believe they never will. I think the Amendment is entirely futile. It is put forward only as an electioneering policy. It will be a splendid thing for hon. Members opposite to say that the hon. and learned Member for Argyllshire supported the landlords. I am not doing that; I am only supporting common-sense and logic, which is totally lacking in this Amendment.

Mr. J. BROWN: Has the hon. and learned Member read any of the memoranda issued by the National Farmers' Union?

Mr. MACQUISTEN: I have read a vast quantity of memoranda, and particularly one which pointed out that the landlord need not raise his rent. There, are only 24 hours in the day and it is almost impossible to read all the documents which have been sent out by this particular union.

Mr. BROWN: Did you read the one which said that the landlords would raise rents?

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Of course I did, and I should like -to know how this gentleman of the Farmers' Union acquired the gift of omniscience and prophecy.

Mr. BROWN: He is not omniscient, and he does not prophesy. But he has great experience.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: We all know who it is that experience teaches.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I cannot have two hon. Members speaking at the same time.

Mr. WHEATLEY: For the first time in the Debate I am indebted to the Government Benches. We have had two most enlightening speeches this afternoon. The hon. and learned Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Macquisten) in his closing sentence seemed to fear that there will be an enlightenment of the electors of Scotland. The hon. and learned Member has told us that the statements made by the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Johnston) are 100 year old bogies, and that there is no reality about the Amendment and the speeches which have been made in support of it. There is certainly some reality in the. £770,000, which is to be taken from the pockets of industrious people and put, into the pockets of the landlords. The hon. and learned Member also pointed out that many landlords resided on estates which had belonged to their ancestors for centuries.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Many of the farmers I said, not landlords. I said the tenants had been on the same estate for hundreds of years.

Mr. WHEATLEY: We know that in some parts of Scotland the tenants have lived on the same farm for many years, but when the hon. and learned Member tells us that it is absurd for the Movers of the Amendment to propose that the landlord should hand over in perpetuity benefits given under this Bill surely his common sense will tell him that it, is equally absurd to propose that the community should hand over to the landlords in perpetuity £770,000 a year. I ask the Committee to remember that it is not merely the farmers who entered into a lease from the 16th of May of last year, or the 1st of June as is now proposed, who are to be deprived of the benefits, but that all farmers after a period of seven years will be deprived of the benefits under the Bill. The hon. Member who spoke last seemed to forget that fact. It is an important item in the scheme that the occupier's share in the
benefits is for only a temporary period and a short period, but that the landlord's benefits from this Bill are in perpetuity.
In the opening stages of the discussions on this policy we heard much about the benefits that were to accrue to industry from this expenditure of public money. Will the Government tell us why these landlords should get this public money? Is there any scarcity of landlords? Is there any land going without an owner, without someone to confer on it those wonderful benefits that appear to reside in the imagination of the hon. and learned Member for Argyllshire? We know that we have idle men, but it will be information to the Committee that we have un-owned land and that we require to give a bribe to people to confer on the community these wonderful benefits. Why, then, is this money being taken from industry to give it to the landlord? You may prepare whatever formula you like, but you will never get away from the hard fact that the money that is to be disposed of here is to come out of the industry of the country. You may make whatever form of words you like, but every single penny of this money, to use the words of a miner friend of mine, is to come from the point of the pick. It is all to come from industry.
The Government are taxing depressed industry in order to grant to landlords, who do not contribute anything in the way of labour to the production of wealth, a larger income than that which they have to-day. I thought the Lord Advocate's speech was delightfully frank. He described this Bill as a Landlords' Relief Bill. He did not try to gloss it over. He said that the object of the Bill was to grant relief to the landlords. I think the public ought to know where we are. We are to spend this public money in granting relief to the landlords. The Lord Advocate said that the reason for that was that the landlord was a partner in industry. He is a partner in the industry in the very same way as I am a partner in a bank if I deposit a little money with it in order to get a return for that money. The landlord is not a partner in ploughing or in reaping; he is not a partner in doing any of the work that has to be done in adding to the wealth of the nation on the farm. He
is a partner in the industry merely for the purpose of exploiting his fellow-partner.
We are told, of course, that he only goes in for the good of his health, for the amenities of his estate, for social status and for all those things that he cannot get without being a landlord. But we know that many men in this country have all this prestige without becoming landlords. I think there must be an ulterior motive in the owning of land in Scotland, because many of the owners do not enjoy that social prestige and do not enjoy the amenities of an estate. Many of them find the amenities they want in the South of France and in other more fortunately situated parts of of the world at seasons of the year like this. I wish again to impress on the Committee that the Lord Advocate's description of this portion of the Bill as a Clause for the relief of landlords is strictly correct, that the occupier's portion is to be only temporary and only small, and that the Government regard it as something lamentable that the occupiers should be allowed to share in it, even to the temporary extent that is referred to in the Bill.
It is incredible that we should be told that this is something to encourage industry. The hon. and learned Member who has just spoken said that it could be all fixed when the leases come to be readjusted, when a fresh lease has to be signed. That, of course, will be necessary only within the period of the seven years. The hon. and learned Member described it as a bargain. He cannot describe as a bargain terms which are entered into between a man who requires to get land for the purpose of earning his living when there are perhaps other people on the verge of starvation prompted to apply for a lease of the same land. It is certainly not a bargain on equal terms. There is a limited amount of land, just as there is a limited amount of work. There is competition for the land among the people who need it, and the man who holds the land, like the man who holds the capital, has the power to fix the terms of life for the people who cannot get their living without his permission.
Therefore, it is absurd to say that in arriving at this bargain the farmer, if he does not like to allow the landlord to walk away with the whole of this sub-
sidy, as it has been described, is free to refuse to occupy the land. Then he will be told by the hon. and learned Member for Argyllshire to go to Canada. The hon. and learned Member seems to forget that when the man goes to Canada a landlord is there waiting for him still, and that the man will have to pay a higher rent for land in the neighbourhood of the towns in Canada than he has to pay for similar land in Scotland. What a glorious future for the willing worker—finding himself attacked at home by a landlord, driven in the name of Empire and in the name of God to Canada, to find that even there he has not escaped from the conditions that drove him from his native land!

Mr. MACQUISTEN: In Canada where there are landlords—

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: I think the landlords in Canada are outside the scope of the Amendment now under discussion.

Mr. WHEATLEY: I succumbed to the temptation that was so eloquently put in my way by the ill-considered admission that when our people go to Canada they have not escaped from the 'greedy landlord. I want to add only that this portion of the Bill, at any rate, is a gross fraud. All this money is to come out of the industry of the country. It is to come out of the workers and out of the capital invested in other industries. Whatever may be said for capitalists in industry, very little can be said for the majority of the owners of land. The hon. and learned Member said that these people must have been industrious at one time or they would not have had the money that they have invested in the land. It is a new doctrine; a new moral doctrine as well as a new economic doctrine that the mere possession of money indicates that the possessor is an industrious person. I wonder whether the hon. and learned Member in his legal profession would accept that definition of an industrious man—the mere possession of wealth?

Mr. MACQUISTEN: If you need siller, you need sense, as they say in Scotland.

Mr. WHEATLEY: As I have said, it is a new doctrine economically and
morally. It will justify any method of obtaining money, and evidently we have arrived at the stage when such a widening of moral justification is required by the people who are defended by the hon. and learned Gentleman. I say that instead of this being a contribution to the relief of industry it is adding a further burden to the industry of the country. It will do nothing to relieve unemployment, except in the way that the sinking of a ship or the destruction of wealth in one form or another may bring relief in a sad way to unemployment. This proposal is a further tax on industry. It is all to come out of the work of the nation. I hope that when Scotland gets the opportunity of expressing its view on the proposal, having read the speeches delivered from the Government side to-day, it will express its common sense in the manner in which it will record its vote.

Mr. MacLAREN: I would like to congratulate the Lord Advocate, and to say that, although I approach with the fullest sympathy the hon. Member for Orkney (Sir R. Hamilton) and those who supported this Amendment, yet I want to assure the Lord Advocate that I am in entire agreement with him and against the Amendment. I want to assure him of that for this reason: I am not in favour of giving the value of the land either to a landowner or to a tenant. Those who are in favour of this Amendment, while they think that there is something coming and that it should be divided between two parties, and that the tenant has as much right to a share of the division as the landlord, yet by that very sentimental attachment to the depressed partner in the contract they are overlooking an economic fact. Therefore I want to emphasise what the Lord Advocate said, and I hope that the Scottish Members present, more especially those on the Labour benches, will go back to their divisions and report every word that the Lord Advocate said to-day. There has been more clear, cold reasoning on the Scottish Local Government Bill in one day that has been expressed during the whole period of the discussion on the English Bill.
The Lord Advocate, with that clarity of reasoning which is inherent in him, tells the country deliberately, what does
it matter whether you divide this quota of money betwen the tenant or the landlord, if it be true that the landlord will eventually reap the whole benefit? He quoted the hon. Baronet the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair), who last night adumbrated the economic fact that the growth of progress in the community postulates an increase in rent. The hon. and gallant Member for Caithness and Sutherland said even to-day that where you allow profit for the use of land the owner of the land will become wealthy in the growth and the progress of the community because of the increase of rent. The Lord Advocate to-day read that quotation from the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Caithness and Sutherland, and I thought he was going to challenge it. I am always willing and anxious to listen to any Conservative or any politician who will dare to challenge the economic teaching of the law of rent, but the hon. and learned Member did not challenge it. He rather assented to it, and then told us—this I want my Scottish Labour friends to take back to Scotland with them, and perhaps the hon. and learned Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Macquisten) will there combat them on the point—

Sir ROBERT HORNE: There will be no difficulty about that.

Mr. MacLAREN: There was this difficulty last night, that the right hon. Gentleman delivered himself of quite an oration on the whole Bill and made as many economic blunders in a short time as I have ever heard any man make on the opposite side of the House, but having made them, he had recourse to the outside hall rather than stick to his place so that he could answer our arguments.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Do I understand that these blunders apply to this particular Amendment?

Mr. MacLAREN: I may not be making that clear, but that is really the truth of the matter. Were it not for these economic blunders, we would not be talking here like school children. The Lord Advocate assented to the teaching of the, law of rent. He did not attempt to meet it, but, having read the quotation from the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Caithness and Sutherland, he said: "If it be true that rent rises with the growth and the progress of society and the owners of the land will stand to reap the harvest, what does it matter whether you give part of this money to the tenant or not, because finally the landlord will stand to reap the entire benefit?" That is true, and I want every critic of the Bill to take that back to Scotland and to tell the people of Scotland that the Lord Advocate last night not only admitted that the landlord would absorb the benefit, but again to-day—[HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense!"] Consult the OFFICIAL REPORT and see whether he did not admit that last night. I am with him to-day; I am saying now, with the Lord Advocate: If it be true that the advantage finally goes to the landlord, why should we, through mere sloppy sentimentality, want to hand some of it in perpetuity to the occupier? As I said before, I say now: If the rent or value of the land belongs to the whole of the community, then I am not going to be a party to any Amendment which divides that between the landlord and occupier.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the word 'sixteenth,' in line 40, stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 176; Noes, 98.

Division No. 214.]
AYES.
[4.49 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Boothby, R. J. G.
Chamberlain, Rt.Hn.SirJ.A. (Birm.,W.)


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman
Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Churchman, Sir Arthur C.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Brass, Captain W.
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Brassey, Sir Leonard
Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Briggs, J. Harold
Cohen, Major J. Brunel


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Briscoe, Richard George
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Cope, Major Sir William


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I
Couper, J. B.


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Courtauld, Major J. S.


Bennett, Albert (Nottingham, C.)
Buckingham, Sir H.
Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.


Berry, Sir George
Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)


Bethel, A.
Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt.R. (Prtsmth.S.)
Dalkeith, Earl of


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)


Davies, Dr. Vernon
King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Salmon, Major I.


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Eden, Captain Anthony
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Locker-Lampson, Com. O.(Handsw'th)
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Ellis, R. G.
Long, Major Eric
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Lougher, Lewis
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl.(Renfrew,W.)


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Shepperson, E. W.


Fanshawe, Captain G. D.
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Fermoy, Lord
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Skelton, A. N.


Ford, Sir P. J.
MacLaren, Andrew
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dlne,C.)


Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
McLean, Major A.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Fraser, Captain Ian
Macquisten, F. A.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.


Galbraith, J. F. W.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Gates, Percy.
Margesson, Captain D.
Streatfelld, Captain S. R.


Goff, Sir Park
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw
Tasker, R. Inigo.


Hamilton, Sir George
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Templeton, W. P.


Hammersley, S. S.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Tinne, J. A.


Hanbury, C.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Harland, A.
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough


Harrison, G. J. C.
Nelson, Sir Frank
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Hartington, Marquess of
Neville, Sir Reginald J.
Waddington, R.


Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingeton-on Hull)


Henderson,Capt.R.R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Nicholson, Col. Rt.Hn.W.G.(Ptrsl'ld.)
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert
Warrender, Sir Victor


Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Nuttall, Ellis
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Hills, Major John Waller
Oakley, T.
Watts, Sir Thomas


Hilton, Cecil
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Wayland, Sir William A.


Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Penny, Frederick George
Wells, S. R.


Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Power, Sir John Cecil
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple-


Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)
Preston, Sir Walter (Cheltenham)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut-Colonel George


Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Raine, Sir Walter
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Ramsden, E.
Womersley, W. J


Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Hurd, Percy A.
Ropner, Major L.
Wragg, Herbert


Hurst, Gerald B.
Ross, R. D.



Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Mr. F. C. Thomson and Major


Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Rye F. G.
the Marquess of Titchfield.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Scurr, John


Adamson, W. M. (Staff, Cannock)
Hall, F. (York, W. R. Normanton)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvll)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Ammon, Charles George
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Sitch, Charles H.


Barr, J.
Hardle, George D.
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Batey, Joseph
Hayes, John Henry
Snell, Harry


Bellamy, A.
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Hirst, G. H.
Stephen, Campbell


Bondfield, Margaret
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Sullivan, J.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Sutton, J. E.


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Buchanan, G.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Thurtle, Ernest


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Kelly, W. T.
Tinker, John Joseph


Cape, Thomas
Kennedy, T.
Tomlinson, R. P.


Charleton, H. C.
Lee, F.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Cluse, W. S.
Lindley, F. W.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhonda)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Lowth, T.
Wellock, Wilfred


Connolly, M.
Lunn, William
Welsh, J. C.


Cove, W. G.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Westwood, J.


Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)
Mackinder, W.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Dalton, Hugh
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Whiteley, W.


Day, Harry
Maxton, James
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Duncan, C.
Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)
Williams, David (Swansea, E.)


Dunnico, H.
Montague, Frederick
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)
Murnin, H.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Gillett, George M.
Oliver, George Harold
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Paling, W.
Windsor, Walter


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edln.,Cent.)
Ponsonby, Arthur
Wright, W.


Greenall, T.
Potts, John S.



Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Ritson, J.
Major-General Sir Robert Hutchison


Griffith, F. Kingsley
Scrymgeour, E.
and Major Owen.

The LORD ADVOCATE: I beg to move, in page 32, line 40, to leave out the words "sixteenth day of May," and to insert instead thereof the words "first day of June."
The first day of June was the date upon which the scheme was made public; therefore, we are proposing to extend the period to that date; that is to say, we are including leases granted right up to the 1st June instead of the 16th May, 1928.

Mr. STEPHEN: I am not quite clear upon the meaning of this Amendment. Does it mean that tenants are going to get a fortnight's more money by reason of this Amendment?

The LORD ADVOCATE: No, Sir. Clause 33 as it stands limits liability for payment of tax to leases entered into prior to the 16th May, 1928. We think that that is cutting it too short, and we propose to extend it to the 1st June. Therefore, if amended, as now proposed, the Clause will read:
Every occupier of agricultural lands and heritages occupying under a lease entered into prior to the first day of June, 1928, shall be entitled "—
and so on, which brings in a fortnight more.

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: On a point of Order. I submit that this is adding a charge to the Bill.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It is, but there is no reason why it should not.

Mr. STEPHEN: I should like to make a few comments upon this alteration which is proposed, and to congratulate the Government on this concession which they have made in allowing an extra fortnight. Most of us on this side of the House feel that the tenant should have this right whenever he comes into occupation of the land, and I think that the Government, in now making the concession of a fortnight in this connection, conceive that a real benefit will be done to the tenant in every case where the tenant will get this right. That is the reason why they have made the concession. I think it is really intolerable, in the difficult circumstances in which agriculturists at the present time are, that they should not have this encouragement whenever they come in, and I think
it is a piece of nonsense that the 1st June should be the date. I think that whenever they enter into a lease—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is now discussing an Amendmen which has been disposed of.

Mr. WESTWOOD: May I, in a word, point out that the Lord Advocate is now admitting for the second time that the deliberate purpose of the Government, in accordance with the Amendment which he is now moving, is, sooner or later, and sooner if possible, to hand over the whole of the £770,000 per year to the landlords.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. WRIGHT: I beg to move, in page 33, line 3, to leave out the words "two and one-half," and to insert instead thereof the word "five."
5.0 p.m.
Under this Amendment, the tenant will get double the amount of benefit compared with the proposal in the Bill. Our desire is to give the maximum benefit to the farmer. This is a very important question from the point of view of agriculture, because we feel that there are other burdens in addition to that of the rates which press heavily on the farmer. The condition of the people to-day is very unsatisfactory, and that is partly due to the great increase in the population of the towns compared with the rural districts. One reason of the very deplorable condition of the people is the neglect of agriculture. If there is ever to be any great improvement in the condition of the people, we shall have to reverse the procedure now adopted in regard to agriculture.
One great object of the Bill is to secure an improvement in trade, but there are other causes than those dealt with in the Bill which adversely affect the condition of the people. Very few people realise what deplorable conditions exist in our land. Yesterday, reference was made to the amount of milk consumed by the people. It is not generally realised that in Great Britain our people are only consuming about one-sixth of the amount of milk—which is so important an element of diet—consumed in several other countries, such as Canada, Sweden and Norway. In the town of Rutherglen, which gives its name to the Division I
have the honour to represent, it was stated recently that the amount of milk consumed was one-sixth of a pint per head of the population. It is quite clear that that is largely due to the lack of purchasing power among the people.
If some vast improvement could be made in agriculture, not merely in this country but in Scotland, probably a great improvement so far as the people are concerned would follow. We want to give the farmer greater advantages than he possesses at present, and we believe that that is possible by giving him the full benefit under this Amendment. During the last 150 years, the power of man to increase wealth has grown enormously. Yet the condition of the people has remained very much what it was 100 years ago. Lord Byron, who returned from a visit to Turkey 100 years ago, expressed this opinion:
I have been in some of the most oppressed provinces of Turkey, hut never, under the most despotic of infidel governments, did I behold such squalid wretchedness as I have seen since I returned in the very heart of a Christian country.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think the Amendment to leave out the words "two and one-half," and to insert instead thereof the word "five," is hardly large enough a peg on which to hang the interesting disquisitions of the hon. Member.

Mr. STEPHEN: On that point of Order, Mr. Herbert. The change from "two and one-half" to "five" would give so much extra relief to the farmer that it would allow him to sell his commodity cheaper—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Order, order. Mr. Wright.

Mr. STEPHEN: Surely, Mr. Herbert, with all respect, I am entitled to put to you, on your Ruling, the point that the hon. Member for Rutherglen (Mr. Wright) is simply seeking to show that we have got to cheapen the price of agricultural commodities because of the tremendous impoverishment of our country.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I have taken note of the hon. Member for Camlachie's (Mr. Stephen) point of Order. I still adhere to the remarks I made to
the hon. Member for Rutherglen (Mr. Wright), and invite him to follow the subject of the Amendment.

Mr. WRIGHT: You will pardon me, Mr. Herbert, for making this observation, but I think you did not hear my argument before you called me to order. My point was, and I think it was perfectly in order, that there has been very slight improvement so far as the people are concerned during the last hundred years; and that poverty of such an acute character that vast numbers of our people are unable to obtain the essentials of a well-ordered life has continued from the day when Lord Byron made those observations in another place 100 hundred years ago down to the present time. Vast numbers of people in the county from which I come are suffering, to-day, precisely in the same way as were those people to whom Lord Byron referred. Despite all this wonderful progress, which is belauded from time to time, the condition of the people in my county is of such an appalling character that a very distinguished lady observed, not long ago, that having visited Russia since the revolution she found the conditions in Lanarkshire quite as bad, if not worse, than anything she had seen in Russia. My point is that improvements, so far as agriculture is concerned, which would enable the farmer to sell his produce at a better rate, and which would give the people greater purchasing power, would enable the people to live at a higher standard than at present.
If the Government really desire to assist agriculture, there are other ways by which they may do it on lines which the farmers themselves have asked for on more than one occasion. We have often been advised to buy British goods. The railway rates for agricultural produce are a very important point, and they operate as a very severe handicap to the farmer. For instance, for a full wagon load of grain from Elgin to Glasgow, a distance of 194 miles, the rate is 23s. 11d. per ton. That compares with a rate of from 18s. to 20s. a ton for a sea voyage to Britain from Argentina, which is a distance of 6,000 miles; while from Australia to Britain, 11,000 miles, the rate is 35s. a ton. If you take dead meat—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I have already warned the hon. Member. I must now warn him again that he must confine any further remarks which he has to make strictly to this Amendment. Otherwise, I must ask him to resume his seat.

Mr. WRIGHT: I will endeavour to obey your Ruling, Sir, but I am bound to say that I think this has a very close connection with the Amendment which we are discussing, and that view is held by quite a number of my colleagues. Of course, it is a very difficult matter sometimes to keep strictly within the rules of Debate. The difference in rates, to which I was referring, would probably play a very great part in reducing the cost of agricultural commodities to the community. Whatever we may think with regard to many other questions raised in the House from time to time, from my point of view—and I think from that of my colleagues—there is no great purpose to be served in a large number of these discussions unless we are going to improve the lot of the common people and to make life possible for them, instead of allowing the scandalous, shameful, disgraceful conditions which exist at the present time to continue.

Mr. HARDIE: The object of the Amendment is really to obtain something more for the producer and to give something less to the consumer. I want to draw attention to the central fact that when the Government were advertising what were to be the benefits to the occupier, I raised the question here of an occupier of a milk-producing farm. I showed then, giving the name and address of the man and the name of his farm, that when he had received the amount of relief in rates due to him under this Bill and when he had paid the extra tax on petrol, he would be £8 out of pocket. I should not have spoken at all at this point but for the fact that the Government refused to give any reply to my statement. If we make this figure in the Bill five instead of two-and-a-half, we shall take from those who do nothing and give to those who produce.
I can see nothing more useful than to say that you will give something to those who are doing the work. The incidence of the petrol tax is not going to operate
in that way, and it will not do justice to those engaged in farming. When you take the cost of the petrol used in the daily runs by farm transport for carrying produce, you find that the farmer is losing money because of the extra amount he is compelled to pay in the tax. In order to try to help him, we are seeking to increase the benefit under the Bill from two-and-a-half to five. Where a farm is situated near a big industrial area, the tendency of the farmer is to produce the article which commands the largest sale in that area, and it happens that as a rule that article is milk. You also get this fact, however, that when the farm is near a big industrial area, and the social demand for milk is created, power is also given to the landlord, because of the social conditions, to get which he has done nothing at all. Yet he relates that power to his land as though he had worked for it, whereas in fact, he may have been in the Mediterranean. He uses that power to extract more from the tenant in the shape of rent. As a result of that, the farmer will be compelled all the time to relate whatever increase in rent he has to pay to the price which he charges for his produce.
Therefore, while it is wrong in principle to give anything of social value, yet since we cannot with a Conservative Government get anything more, we have to try to withhold as much as we can from what the Government are giving to the landlords and to give it instead to those who really are doing useful work. The farmer is always doing useful work, but no one on the other side has attempted to show that the landowner has ever done any useful work at all, because even when we take the question as between the farmer in this country and the farmer in another country, we have been assured to-day from the Tory Benches that even in Canada you find the same thing relating there to an industrial area, namely, that there is a high rent charged against the farmer. In that, way the whole of the social wealth of industry is being sucked up in the form of rent, which, applied to production, means an increase in the price to the consumer. In asking that the Committee should accept this Amendment, we say that since we cannot get a full grip of all the social value, we
want to do our best to give something to the man who is really doing the work.

Mr. STEPHEN: I wish to support the Amendment. The object of the Bill, according to the Government, is to improve the opportunities of productive industry and thereby to create employment, and one of the things that we have to do, according to the Government's scheme, is to try to give a certain amount of help to the agricultural industry. Consequently, if the Government's thesis be correct, that by means of these de-rating proposals certain benefits will accrue to productive industry, then, on that reasoning, one ought to see that all of this relief will come to the people who are directly engaged in the productive industry. I do not think there is any hon. Member opposite who will say to-day that the landowner is really a co-operating factor in the agricultural production of this country. One of the most eminent agricultural authorities in this country has laid it down that in these days the landowner has simply become a rent-drawer and that he plays no useful part whatsoever. I notice that the Solicitor-General for Scotland shakes his head, as if he disagrees with that, but I can assure him that the authority I am quoting is one of the most eminent agriculturists in this country.
Here is the position, that we are going to hand over a certain amount of relief for production, and that that will reduce, the costs of the producer in producing his commodities. Surely, if we double the amount of relief, as suggested by this Amendment, if we can look for a certain amount of improvement from two and a half times, we can look for practically double that improvement from five times the relief that will be handed over by the landowner in this way to his tenant. It is proposed that the tenant is to get five-sixteenths and the landowner also, but why should the landowner get anything at all in connection with this derating? Is he going to employ an extra number of men through getting this five-sixteenths? Is he going to add a single member to his staff? Is he going to do anything whatever to increase employment or to lessen the price of commodities by getting his five-sixteenths? I cannot see, in any of these discussions, any
indication that the landowner is going to do anything to improve employment or to reduce the price of commodities.
It may be arguable that the tenant will certainly, owing to this relief, if he is able to get his production reduced in price by a certain amount, be able to get so much more land under cultivation, and thereby may require the services of an additional man or boy. Something might be done in that way, but if you are going to give the relief in this way, then give the whole of the relief to the person who is directly concerned in the work of production, and give nothing whatsoever to the parasite. I am reminded of a story I once heard of a man who, when the better weather came and the frost had gone and the sun was on both sides of the hedge, was one day, when the sun was very high, lying down at rest by the roadside, and myriads of small creatures came on to him, but none of them did him any harm. Then a wasp stung him, and he got up, very annoyed. He saw all the little creeping things, swept the lot of them off him, and said: "That settles it; off you go, the whole lot of you!" I do not think the Government in this Bill are getting rid of any parasites at all, but here is the landlord, parasitical class, and if we do not get rid of them, at least to a partial extent, we can see to it that they are not going to come in as parasites and share in the amount of relief that is given in this connection.
Consequently, I should like to see the Lord Adovcate or the Under-Secretary make it plain that we do not require to follow the example of England in this respect, that because the English landowner is getting a bit, we have to give the Scottish landowner something also. Possibly, I shall not be able to persuade the Under-Secretary, seeing that he has the corresponding English Minister alongside of him on that bench, but there is no need why we should follow the English example. Here is a case where, with advantage to agriculture and to Scotland generally, we should make a departure, and I hope—

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Major Elliot): Surely the hon. Member is not ignorant of the fact that there is no parallel here between the English and the Scottish rating practices.

Mr. STEPHEN: I am quite well aware that the rating system is different in Scotland from what it is in England, but I am also aware that the English Bill is giving its measure of relief to the landowner, just as the Scottish Bill is giving its measure of relief to the landowner; and my point is that, while the rating systems are different in the two countries, here is a case where we can make a divergence from the English practice and hand nothing to these parasites, as has been done in the English case. I hope I have made it clear to the Under-Secretary and that, if there is any advantage coming to agriculture from this relief, we shall make it as much as possible; and there is no man who can honestly say in this House that by giving something to the landowner, we shall help in any way in the development of agriculture. I hope we are going to get this concession and that the whole lot of the money will flow to the agricultural community, so that, if there be anything in it that is of great importance to the agriculturist, we shall see the experiment tried under the best circumstances, although, personally, I do not believe there is going to be any great development of agriculture or any increase of employment in the agricultural districts resulting from this Bill.

Sir R. HORNE: This Amendment is designed to take away entirely from the landlord any relief, and that, I gather, is defended upon the ground that the landlords are mere parasites and should not, therefore, get anything at all. I would not intervene in this Debate, because obviously we shall never come to an agreement—we hold totally different views, and we are as poles asunder on this question—but I do intervene so that it shall not be thought that there is nothing to be said for the other side. On the general question as to the position of the landlords of this country and the service which they have rendered to it, an eloquent speech has been made by a Member for a very large agricultural constituency, in the person of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Argyll (Mr. Macquisten), and I do not propose at all to repeat the very powerful argument which he adduced upon that subject, hut I wish to say something in reply to the speech of the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton),
though I am well aware that one hon. Member, speaking from the other side this afternoon, stated that my speech yesterday on a similar question was more full of fallacies than anything he had ever heard in this House.

Mr. MacLAREN: Economic fallacies.

Sir H. HORNE: I would observe to the hon. Member that a thing is not made an economic fallacy simply because the hon. Member says it is.

Mr. MacLAREN: Oh, yes, it is!

Sir R. HORNE: The most vain of all people who have been held up to the derision of the world at large was the man who is reported to have said, "What I say three times is right," but apparently the hon. Member goes further, and not only says that everything that he says is right, but that anything that anybody else says is wrong. Undismayed by the rebuke which I have received from the hon. Member, I wish to point out that even the right hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley), who cannot be supposed to have any particular affection for landlords, this afternoon made the admission that a landlord was only a partner in the business in the sense that a depositor in a bank was a partner. The right hon. Gentleman would think himself very ill-served if he did not get interest upon his deposit, and accordingly the landlord, at the worst, would be entitled to the interest on the money which he spends. If you take Scotland by and large, the interest which the landlord's expenditure is getting at the present time is very little, if any, more than one would get for a deposit in the bank at the present time. In fact, on the whole, it is rather less.

Mr. MacLAREN: When people speak of a landlord they speak of him as a rent receiver, or a man who hires land out at a rent. It may be true that such a person may improve the land and it was said last night, after the right hon. Gentleman had left the Chamber, that we would be in favour of giving relief for every improvement effected by a landowner as an improver. But, as a rent receiver, we still maintain he is rendering no service to the community. We said that, as a landowner, he was as good as his neighbour.

Sir R. HORNE: I think that argument becomes rather ridiculous if we follow it out on those lines. My hon. Friend opposite agrees that the landowner is entitled to such benefits as he may receive, along with the rest of the community, in respect of money expended on the land, but if we take that admission the whole case for the Amendment is given away. Take the case of the factory owner. I suppose it is agreed that he benefits the community by building a factory in which work is given to the people, and when you come to de-rate in his favour you make your concession upon the factories he has erected, and the equipment he has put into them. Then take the case of the landowner. Who has put up the farm steadings, and who keeps up the farm steadings? It is the landowner. Who, for the most part, does the draining of the land? It is the landowner—and we must remember that the keeping up of drains is a very expensive item and an important item in inducing the land to fructify. Who maintains fences upon most of the land? It is the landowner. On all these things, on the admission of my hon. Friend opposite, the landowner is entitled to de-rating.
What is the basis of the proposal here? It is that all land should be de-rated, but that rates should be paid upon the estimated value of the farm houses. In England the occupier pays the whole of the rates, and accordingly the landowner does not come into the picture. Therefore our rating system so far from being a slavish copy of the English system is based upon a different principle. In England the rates are being imposed on the value of the farm houses. What is being done in Scotland is to assume that one-eighth of the rent represents the value of the farm houses and upon that rates are to he paid. Again I put the question. Who has built these farm buildings? It is the landowner, and the very thing which is being de-rated, is the thing which he has supplied and which he contracts to keep in repair. Accordingly, on the principle to which the hon. Member opposite himself has agreed, it is perfectly plain that the landowner, if anybody, is entitled to the benefits of de-rating, according to his merits under this Bill.

Mr. BARR: I desire to support the Amendment on very much the same
grounds as those put forward by the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen). There has been much discussion as to how much of the benefit which falls, in the first instance, to the landlord will pass to the occupier. In the Amendment we seek to secure that the whole of the sum will pass to the tenant as far as existing leases are concerned. The object of the Bill is to develop industry in this way, but while this concession remains in the hands of the landlords, there will be uncertainty as to how it will be spent. In some cases it may be spent on the landlord's own pleasure. In other cases, I grant, it may be spent on the improvement of the land. But we propose to take a step which will ensure that, as far as we can control it, this concession will go into the hands of the occupiers and tillers of the soil. In that case we may assume that while some of it may go to the greater comfort of the man who is farming the land, the larger part will go into the development of the land. Nothing so retards the development of the land as that the occupier should not have the necessary means.
Therefore, as far as it goes, I value the Amendment because it gives greater facilities to the occupier to develop the soil. The money is to be spent one way or the other. We are considering now how it is to be divided. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne) has correctly interpreted our intention, namely, that for the existing leases the whole of this relief should go from the landlord to the tenant farmer. I do not pursue the question of whether the landlord is always a parasite or not. In many cases which I have known the description would be quite accurate. On the other hand, I grant to the right hon. Gentleman opposite—speaking as one who has spent a considerable part of his life in the country and is familiar with the farming system in Scotland—that landlords vary, and that there are some who have put their available means into the development of the land. The right hon. Gentleman asked us who put up the buildings and fences and did the draining. One might also ask who leaves so many of the buildings derelict, who leaves so much of the land undrained, and who leaves so many fences in disrepair?
I am not speaking at random. On the estate on which I was minister for six years in Dumfrieshire, it had been the custom to supply the wood and for the tenant farmers to put up the fences. An order was sent out from the estate office that they would no longer be able to do this and that the farmers must find their own wood, and thus, what had been accounted an immemorial right was found, after all, to be only a privilege. When we speak of the landowners as partners we have to remember that many of them are only sleeping partners, and many in Scotland to-day, as was formerly the case in Ireland, are absentee landlords. I do not wish to differ materially from anything which has been said from these benches, and I would not be in order in going back to a previous Amendment. But I thought my hon. Friend the Member for Burslem (Mr. MacLaren) was guided rather much by theoretical considerations in what he put forward. I have myself, to a considerable extent, subscribed to the doctrines that lie behind what he said, but I am not so much concerned about the logic of the matter, or about the multitude of the heresies or the fallacies which fell from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead. What I am concerned about is to give some practical help to a class of people whom I know to be struggling and suffering intensely in many parts of the country.
I excuse my hon. Friend the Member for Burslem for not having the same feeling towards the tenant farmers of Scotland that I have. That is due to his upbringing in the city. But I was brought up among the farming community. I have often heard my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) speak about his class. I speak to-day as one who knows the struggles of the farming class. I know the extravagant hours they have worked in the past and are working still. I know that many farmers in Scotland could not pay their rent to-day were it not that their families are giving free labour on the land. I know of cases where the hard-won savings of a farmer have had to go in the payment of excessive rent. As one who knows the system from the inside, I may adopt the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton Burghs and say that I speak
for the class to which I belong, as one who knows the struggle which they are waging. If I had an opportunity of taking £770,000 per annum away from the landlord class—whether they are parasites or not, and I would discriminate, because we must discriminate between one person and another as a landlord—I would pass over the whole of that sum, as we are now seeking to do, to the industrious class in the community for whom I speak. I heard the hon. and learned Member for Argyll (Mr. Macquisten) say that the struggle to-day is not; what it was 100 years ago. There is some truth in that, but we have all read Robert Burns on the hard life of the farmer, and what he wrote is true of not a few farms in Scotland to-day:
We labour soon, we labour late,
To feed the titled knave, man I
And a' the comfort we're tae get
Is that ayont the grave, man!
I would like to give the farmers a little comfort on this side of the grave. I have no doubt that some landowners in Scotland will pass on in various ways some of this benefit, just as certain other landowners will not pass on one penny of it. We are seeking to secure that this benefit should pass to the working-class population of the country, to the farmers and the agricultural labourers without any undue deference to the large landowners, to whom £770.000 is nothing compared with what it will be to the tenants. We are seeking to secure some substantial benefit arid encouragement and help to a most industrious class in the community.

The LORD ADVOCATE: I only wish to add a few remarks to what my right hon. Friend the Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne) has said. It must not be forgotten that the agricultural community, both landlord and tenant, after this Bill passes, will be receiving relief to the tune of something over £1,500,000, and that the tenants—but not wholly as the result of the Bill—will get off seven-eighths of their rating, which means £770,000. [HON. MEMBERS: "The landowners!"] No, excuse me. The tenants will get off seven-eighths, which is £770,000, and the landlords will get off seven-eighths, which is £770,000, and if you add these sums together they come to over £1,500,000, and during the currency of existing leases in some cases and for a period of seven
years in other cases, the landlords will be handing over between £300,000 and £400,000 to the tenants. The question we are now debating is whether the remaining £300,000 odd is to go from the landlords to the tenants in addition to the sum of over £1,000,000 which they are getting already.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Is it not the case that on 3rd July last the Secretary of State for Scotland, answering the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Sir R. Hamilton), said that the relief in respect of owners rates was estimated at £770,000, and the relief in respect of occupier's rates at £110,000?

The LORD ADVOCATE: The hon. Member has not been listening to what I have said. I said that after this Bill was passed the tenant would be relieved of seven-eighths of his rates, the amount being £770,000, but I also made it clear that that was not entirely under this Bill. I said that. I think I made it quite clear.

Mr. JOHNSTON: I am sorry I did not appreciate that point.

The LORD ADVOCATE: At any rate, we have now arrived at an understanding as to the figures to which I am referring. The question is whether during the currency of the leases the remaining £300,000 is to be handed over by the landlord to the tenant. I was interested in the statement of the hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Barr) that the reason why landlords have ceased providing or maintaining equipment was because they are unable to do so. In many cases the landlord is quite unable to do his proper duty, even if he is anxious to do it, and is not able to keep up the equipment according to his natural obligations.

Mr. BARR: I am sure the right hon. Gentleman would not misrepresent what I said. I did not say at all that they were not able. I did speak of derelict estates; but the point I was then making was that landlords had discovered that the benefit they were conferring was a privilege and had nothing to do with immemorial right, and that on that ground they had withdrawn the benefits.

The LORD ADVOCATE: The hon. Member used the word "able." He will see that if he consults the OFFICIAL
REPORT to-morrow. I accept, of course, the correction he has now made. In this connection it is not uninteresting to note that when the Corporation of Glasgow was considering the question of running its farms one of the difficulties was that £7,500 was required in order that they, as the owners of the farms, should equip them on an economic basis. One of the Socialist members of the council said this:
The suggestion of the expert that the farms could he reorganised on the lines of dairy farms at a cost of:£7,500 would be well worth more serious consideration by members of the corporation, particularly those attending the committee. It had been argued that that was a tremendous capital expenditure, but under the new De-rating Bill they would be entitled to a rebate of £400 on the farms, and that would more than cover the cost of the interest charged against the £7,500 which it was estimated was required to put them on au economic basis.
That is a very good illustration of the kind of thing we have in mind. Hon. Members opposite wish, apparently, to penalise good landlords because there are a few bad ones. They admit, most of them, that there are many landlords who will do their duty in this matter, and take advantage of the help and relief given to them in order to better a farm which is let to a tenant. There are some bad ones, just as there are bad people in every trade, but that is not a valid reason for penalising the good ones. I would draw attention to a remark by the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Johnston) yesterday, and in this connection I was interested to note what I think, probably, was the discretion of the hon. Member for Orkney (Sir R. Hamilton) in intimating to-day that he was not going to move the Third Amendment on the Paper. That Amendment would have stereotyped the payments according to the amount of rates in the first complete year, and the only object of that Amendment could have been to prevent any incentive on the part of the tenants, being in a majority on the local authority, to send rates up.

Sir R. HAMILTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman allow me to say that he has given the exact reason why I did not move it?

The LORD ADVOCATE: I appreciate that statement. It would be very damag-
ing to make any such suggestion; but the Amendment was on the Paper, and the wisdom came, though late. I would like to remind the House of what the hon. Member for Dundee said yesterday:
Is it not the case that under the Government's proposals the tenant farmer, during the period that he gets one-half of the landlord's share, is actually going to be in pocket, and therefore for the first time in British economic history you are going to have a class in the country whom it will pay to vote for increased rates?
A little later he said:
A favoured class of the community is not only going to pay no rates at all, but will be put in pocket, and therefore there will he people who will have a direct economic incentive to vote for increased rates."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th February, 1929: cols. 1216–47, Vol. 225.]

Here we have an Amendment from the benches opposite to double that incentive. Where is this incentive most likely to be found? In the crofting areas. I hope the crofters will note the kind of conduct of which they are suspected by people who sometimes claim to be their friends. It is amazing, in face of that view, that they should come to ask us to double the incentive. For these reasons and also because we believe in the fairness of the distribution of the relief which we propose to make, I ask the Committee to reject this Amendment.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 194; Noes, 108.

Division No. 215.]
AYES.
[5.54 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Davies, Dr. Vernon
King, Commodore Henry Douglas


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Dawson, Sir Philip
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman
Eden, Captain Anthony
Long, Major Eric


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman


Atkinson, C.
Elliot, Major Walter E.
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Ellis, R. G.
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
McLean, Major A.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Macmillan, Captain H.


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Fanshawe, Captain G. D.
Macquisten, F. A.


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Fermoy, Lord
MacRobert, Alexander M.


Bennett, Albert (Nottingham, C.)
Ford, Sir P. J.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.


Berry, Sir George
Forrest, W.
Margesson, Captain D.


Betterton, Henry B.
Fraser, Captain Ian
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Meller, R. J.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Gates, Percy
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Golf, Sir Park
Meyer, Sir Frank


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Gower, Sir Robert
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)


Brass, Captain W.
Granted, Edward C. (City of London)
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Grotrian, H. Brent
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon, William Clive
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)


Briggs, J. Harold
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive


Briscoe, Richard George
Hammersley, S. S.
Nelson, Sir Frank


Brittain, Sir Harry
Harland, A.
Neville, Sir Reginald J.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Harrison, G. J. C.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Hartington, Marquess of
Newton, Sir D, G. C. (Cambridge)


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Nicholson, Col. Rt.Hn.W.G.(Ptrsf'ld.)


Buckingham, Sir H.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Nuttall, Ellis


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Oakley, T.


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Henderson,Capt.R.R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William


Cayzer,MaJ.Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian
Penny, Frederick George


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Power, Sir John Cecil


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Hills, Major John Waller
Radford, E. A.


Churchill, Rt, Hon. Winston Spencer
Hoare, Lt.-Col Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Ramsden, E.


Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Ropner, Major L.


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)
Ross, R. D.


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Rye, F. G.


Cope, Major Sir William
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberland, Whiteh'n)
Salmon, Major I.


Couper, J. B.
Hume, Sir G. H.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Hurd, Percy A.
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Hurst, Gerald B.
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Dalkeith, Earl of
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Davidson, Rt, Hon. J. (Hertford)
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Sandon, Lord


Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl.(Renfrew,W.)
Templeton, W. P.
Welle, S. R.


Shepperson, E. W.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple


Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)
Tinne, J. A.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Skelton, A. N.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Southby, Commander A. R. J.
Waddington, R.
Womersley, W. J.


Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.
Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.
Wragg, Herbert


Streatfeild, Captain S. R.
Warrender, Sir Victor



Stuart. Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Sugden, Sir Wilfrid
Watts, Sir Thomas
Major the Marquess of Titchfield


Tasker, R. Inigo.
Wayland, Sir William A.
and Captain Wallace.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W, (Fife, West)
Groves, T.
Ritson, J.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Saklatvala, Shapurji


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Scrymgeour, E.


Barnes, A.
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Scurr, John


Barr, J.
Hardle, George D.
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Batey, Joseph
Harris, Percy A.
Shield, G. W.


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Hayes, John Henry
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Bellamy, A.
Hirst, G. H.
Sitch, Charles H.


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Smillle, Robert


Bondfield, Margaret
Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Snell, Harry


Bromley, J.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Stephen, Campbell


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Strauss, E. A.


Buchanan, G.
Kelly, W. T.
Sullivan, J.


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Kennedy, T.
Sutton, J. E.


Cape, Thomas
Lawrence, Susan
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Charleton, H. C.
Lawson, John James
Thurtle, Ernest


Cluse, W. S.
Lee, F.
Tinker, John Joseph


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Lindley, F. W.
Tomilnson, R. P.


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock
Lowth, T.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Cove, W. G.
Lunn, William
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Dalton, Hugh
Mackinder, W.
Wellock, Wilfred


Day, Harry
MacLaren, Andrew
Welsh, J. C.


Duncan, C.
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Westwood, J.


Dunnico, H
Maxton, James
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Gardner, J. P.
Montague, Frederick
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Murnin, H.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)


Gillett, George M.
Naylor, T. E.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Oliver, George Harold
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercilffe)


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edln., Cent.)
Owen, Major G.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Greenall, T.
Paling, W.
Windsor, Walter


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Wright, W.


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Ponsonby, Arthur



Griffith, F. Kingsley
Potts, John S.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Mr. T. Henderson and Mr. Whiteley.

The LORD ADVOCATE: I beg to move, in page 33, to leave out from the word "landholder" in line 11 to the end of line 14, and to insert instead thereof the words:
and every statutory small tenant within the meaning of the Small Landholders (Scotland) Acts, 1886 to 1919, who is in occupation or who is the statutory successor of a landholder or statutory small tenant in occupation of a holding on the first day of June, nineteen hundred and twenty-eight.
6.0 p.m.
This is really a redrafting of the Clause, which originally did not include the statutory small tenant in occupation on 1st June who clearly ought to be included. The other part of his proposal corresponds to an Amendment we have already made changing the date from 16th May to 1st June, 1928.

Mr. HARDIE: What difference will this Amendment make to those coming under the new provision?

The LORD ADVOCATE: The Clause refers to leases entered into, prior to 16th May, and we now propose to alter that to 1st June.

Mr. STEPHEN: Does that mean that those who made bargains is after that date will get no help under this scheme?

The LORD ADVOCATE: They will not be entitled to recover the landlord's part of the rating relief, but they will get relief.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir R. HAMILTON: I beg to move, in page 33, to leave out from the word
"entitled," in line 16, to the word "This," in line 20, and to insert instead thereof the words:
to apply to the Land Court for a reduction of the rent of his holding by an amount equal to two and one-half times the amount of the owner's share of such rates as are payable in respect of such holding during the year commencing on the day on which this Act comes into operation.
This Amendment relates more particularly to the right of the tenant to apply to the Land Court for a reduction of rent. I do not desire to repeat arguments which have been used before. We consider that it is undesirable that this large sum should go to the party who is not the most active member in the partnership in industry. This Amendment will enable any statutory small landholder to apply for a reduction of rent equal to half the landlord's benefit. The case I am placing before the Committee is somewhat different from the cases dealt with earlier in the Debate, because there is no provision or machinery dealing with the handing over of the landlord's share in the case of an ordinary lease, and this Amendment provides the necessary machinery.

The LORD ADVOCATE: As long as the portion of the landlord's relief is payable to the tenant by means of deduction from the rent, the landholder has an absolute right. This Amendment only gives the right to go to the Court, and it does not confer an absolute right to the full amount of the relief. In the event of an increase of rates the tenant would have to bear the result of that increase, but he would not get additional relief to the extent of an equivalent amount of the reduction of rent. This Amendment is intended to make the provision permanent, but that question has already been dealt with at great length, and it has been disposed of.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Under this proposal there exists machinery whereby what we

require can easily be made permanent, if the Government really desire to ensure that the active partner in production in agriculture shall succeed to the benefits which the Government pretend to give to agriculture, here is a ready method which has been accepted by the statutory small tenants all over the land. If the Government refuse to accept this proposal, it will be apparent that their intention is not even to use the existing machinery for securing that the active partner gets a square deal, and the landlord will ultimately collar all the relief given under this Bill. I hope the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Sir R. Hamilton) will press his Amendment to a Division, in order that we may put on record the fact that the Government refuse to use the existing machinery.

The LORD ADVOCATE: During the period of the temporary relief, my argument remains uncontradicted that the landholder would be in a worse position. Under the Government proposal, as soon as the repayment of the relief has terminated, it is open to the landholder to go to the Land Court and ask for a refixing of the rent. To suggest that the machinery is not there is to take a wrong view of our proposal.

Sir GODFREY COLLINS: During the first seven years the landholder might have increased burdens placed on his shoulders. The Amendment we are putting forward gives the tenant the option, and therefore if he thought that his interests would be adversely affected, he would not apply to the Land Court to secure the reduction. As the whole subject of the rates gives a very large benefit to the landlord, I still hope the Government will reconsider their view.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 192; Noes. 106.

Division No. 216.]
AYES.
6.13 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Braithwaite, Major A. N.


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles
Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Brass, Captain W.


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Brassey, Sir Leonard


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman
Bennett, Albert (Nottingham, C.)
Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Berry, Sir George
Briggs, J. Harold


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Betterton, Henry B.
Briscoe, Richard George


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Brittain, Sir Harry


Atkinson, C.
Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Brocklebank, C. E. R


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Boothby, R. J. G.
Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Broun-Lindsay, Major H.


Buckingham, Sir H.
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Ramsden, E.


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Hills, Major John Waller
Reid, D. D. (County Down)


Butt, Sir Alfred
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Remer, J. R.


Campbell, E. T.
Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Ropner, Major L.


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R.(Prtsmth.S)
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Ross, R. D.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)
Ruggies-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Rye, F. G.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Salmon, Major I.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Hume, Sir G. H.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Hurd, Percy A.
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Hurst, Gerald B.
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Sandon, Lord


Cope, Major Sir William
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Couper, J. B.
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl.(Renfrew,W.)


Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islingtn., N.)
King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Shepperson, E. W.


Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Skelton, A. N.


Dalkeith, Earl of
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dlne.C.)


Davidson, Rt. Hon: J. (Hertford)
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Long, Major Eric
Southhy, Commander A. R. J.


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.


Dawson, Sir Philip
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Eden, Captain Anthony
MacAndrew, Major Charles Gien
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Elliot, Major Walter E.
McLean, Major A.
Tasker, R. Inigo.


Ellis, R. G.
Macmillan, Captain H.
Templeton, W. P.


Erskine, James Malcolm Monfeith
Macquisten, F. A.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
MacRobert Alexander M.
Tinne, J. A.


Fanshawe, Captain G. D.
Margesson, Captain D.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Fermoy, Lord
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough


Ford, Sir P. J.
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Fraser, Captain Ian
Meller, R. J.
Waddington, R.


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Galbraith, J. F. W.
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-
Ward, Lt.-Col.A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)


Gates, Percy
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Goff, Sir Park
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Gower, Sir Robert
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Watts, Sir Thomas


Grotrian, H. Brent
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Wayland, Sir William A.


Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Nelson, Sir Frank
Wells, S. R.


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Neville, Sir Reginald J.
White, Lleut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple-


Hammersley, S. S.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Harland, A.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Harrison, G. J. C.
Nicholson, Col.Rt.Hn.W.G. (Ptrsf'ld.)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Hartington, Marquess of
Nuttall, Ellis
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Oakley, T.
Womersley, W. J.


Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Penny, Frederick George
Wragg, Herbert


Henderson,Capt.R.R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Power, Sir John Cecil



Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian
Pownall, Sir Assheton
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Radford, E. A.
Captain Bowyer and Major the


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Dunnico, H.
Kelly, W. T.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwelity)
Kennedy, T.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)
Lawrence, Susan


Barnes, A.
Forrest, W.
Lawson, John James


Barr, J.
Gardner, J. P.
Lee, F.


Batey, Joseph
Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Lindley, F. W.


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Gillett, George M.
Lowth, T.


Bellamy, A.
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Lunn, William


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Greenall, T.
Mackinder, W.


Bondfield, Margaret
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
MacLaren, Andrew


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Griffith, F. Kingsley
MacNeill-Weir, L.


Bromley, J.
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Maxton, James


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Groves, T.
Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Montague, Frederick


Buchanan, G.
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Murnin, H.


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Hardle, George D.
Oliver, George Harold


Cape, Thomas
Harris, Percy A.
Paling, W.


Charleton, H. C.
Hayes, John Henry
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Potts, John S.


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Hirst, G. H.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Connolly, M.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Saklatvala, Shapurji


Cove, W. G.
Jenkins, W, (Glamorgan, Neath)
Scrymgeour, E.


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Scurr, John


Dalton, Hugh
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Day, Harry
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Shield, G. W.




Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Thurtle, Ernest
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Sitch, Charles H.
Tinker, John Joseph
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Smillie, Robert
Tomilnson, R. P.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Snell, Harry
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney
Windsor, Walter


Stephen, Campbell
Wellock, Wilfred
Wright, W.


Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
Welsh, J. C.



Strauss, E. A.
Westwood, J.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Sullivan, Joseph
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.
Major-General Sir Robert Hutchison


Sutton, J. E.
Whiteley, W.
and Major Owen.


Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)
Wilkinson, Ellen C

The LORD ADVOCATE: I beg to move, in page 33, to leave out from the word "holding," in line 21, to the end of the Sub-section, and to insert instead thereof the words:
at the first term of Whitsunday or Martinmas next succeeding the decision of the Land Court or an application for alteration of the fixed rent or, in the case of a landholder, on the expiry of the period of seven years from the first day of June, nineteen hundred and twenty-eight, if during that period no such decision has been given.
This is really a re-drafting Amendment. The provision as originally worded only applied where the result was some alteration, either up or down, and the case in which, although an application had been made, the Court left the rent as it was, was not included. Obviously, that ought to be included also, and, therefore, we have so worded the Amendment as to make it apply to every case in which an application is made for alteration. It will be noticed that, as the Amendment stands on the Paper, the commencement of the period of seven years is given as the 16th May, 1928, but, in the Amendment as I have moved it, the 1st June, 1928, is given as the date, in order to make it correspond with the other Amendment that I have moved.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. JOHNSTON: I beg to move, in page 33, to leave out lines 27 and 28.
Up to this moment we have been discussing relief to argiculture; we are now discussing relief upon industrial lands and heritages. This afternoon the Government have resisted every attempt made from this side of the Committee to ensure that the agricultural tenant should receive his proper benefit, and we are attempting now to ensure that the tenant of an industrial heritage shall benefit for at least a longer period than the Government intend. The Government specifically say in this Bill that the only industrial tenants who shall benefit shall be those who have entered into a
lease prior to the 16th May, 1998, so that the tenants of industrial lands and heritages will not receive benefit unless they have entered into their contracts before that date. We seek to remove this limit, and to ensure that all tenants of industrial lands and heritages shall receive benefit, whether or not they entered into a lease prior to the 16th May. Surely, if the Government's pretentions in the country, and their declarations in the House of Commons, that they intend that this money which is being poured out from the national Exchequer shall go to the relief of industry, are to be credited, they ought to ensure that the industrial landowner as such shall not receive the benefit, but that it shall be passed on to the user of the capital, for whom the Government have declared themselves so solicitous.
As the Clause stands now, unless I am completely mistaken, it means that seven years from May, 1928, the benefits accruing by way of relief in rates shall, or may—one can never say "shall" in a matter of this kind—pass to the proprietor of the subjects, and not to the user of the subjects. What that will mean to many a user of an industrial subject is perfectly apparent to every hon. Member of the House. Within seven years from now, industrial rents will be raised, new contracts will be entered into at increased rents, and the owner of industrial land will obviously scoop into his own pocket whatever benefits the Government here pretend are going to be given. It has been argued to-clay, as it was yesterday, that the proprietor of agricultural land was entitled to some relief. We had the argument from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne), and from the hon. and learned Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Macquisten), that the proprietor of agricultural land is entitled to some relief because he has expended capital in fencing, in drainage, in farmhouses and buildings—that the proprietor of the
agricultural subject was definitely entitled to relief inasmuch as it was with his capital that the business of agriculture was largely carried on. That, obviously, cannot apply to the proprietor of land upon which there are certain classes, at any rate, of industrial subjects. Take, for example, a mineral royalty. No one can pretend that the mineral royalty owner has, from his capital store, expended money on improving his subject; he is purely a rent receiver. We 'are seeking by this Amendment to exclude the words limiting the benefits to those who have entered into contracts prior to last May, so that the actual tenant of an industrial subject, the man who, presumably, is using his capital to further industry, shall get the benefit of the relief given, and that it shall not go to the proprietor of the industrial land or heritage.

Mr. DUNCAN GRAHAM: I hope that there will be little or no opposition to this Amendment from the Government benches, and that the Government will accept it. I fancy that the Lord Advocate will have some difficulty in answering the point put by my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee (Mr. Johnston). At any rate, he will have some difficulty in convincing Members on this side of the Committee and the public outside, though, I have no doubt, as a lawyer he will be able to make out a fairly decent case. It will be interesting to hear what he has to say in answer to the argument of my hon. Friend. This seems to be a very simple and a comparatively innocent proposal. There is no ulterior motive. We are seeking only to secure that the tenant of an industrial undertaking shall get what Parliament intends, or at least what we are asked to believe Parliament intends. The individual who renders no service whatever, but who is merely the owner of the land upon which either a factory is built or a coal pit is sunk, ought not to get the 'advantages that have already been decided shall go to the landlord of agricultural land. In order to make certain that the position is exactly what we say it is, I will read they Clause as it stands, and then read it in conjunction with our Amendment. By so doing, I hope that our friends on the other side, who are
particularly anxious that industry should be helped by the action of Parliament in respect of the passing of this Bill, will be induced to influence the Government to accept the Amendment. The Clause as it stands reads:
Every occupier of industrial lands and heritages occupying under a lease entered into prior to the sixteenth day of May,"—
I suppose that now the 1st June will be the date—
nineteen hundred and twenty-eight, shall he entitled on any rate becoming due in respect of such lands and heritages to recover from the owner thereof by retention out of rent or otherwise a sum equal to the owner's share of such rate multiplied by three.
We are not taking exception to the action proposed in the Clause. What we are asking is that the two lines:
occupying under a lease entered into prior to the sixteenth day of May, nineteen hundred and twenty-eight 
shall be taken out. The Clause would then read:
Every occupier of industrial lands and heritages shall be entitled on any rate becoming due in respect of such lands and heritages to recover from the owner thereof by retention out of rent or otherwise a sum equal to the owner's share of such rate multiplied by three.
That is perfectly clear, and it will not be necessary to go to the Courts. If the Committee accept this Amendment, there will be no question of the lawyers making profit out of this particular Bill. As far as I can understand the position, it is not intended that the lawyers should be included here. But it so happens, owing to the position that the Government have already taken up on other questions, and owing to their intentions with reference to industrial undertakings, that this will prove to be a bit of a gold mine for the lawyers. We want to keep the lawyers out. We have a somewhat less opinion of the lawyer than we have of the owner of the land upon which the industrial undertaking is built. Practically half the men in the mining industry in my County of Lanark at the present time are idle. We are asked to believe that the collieries that are working are not profitable as far as the owners are concerned. They certainly are not profitable as far as the workers are concerned, because they are not getting sufficient wages to enable them to live. However, every quarter that the returns
are published we find that the collieries are very profitable to the owners of the land. The landlords are getting their share.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr. James Hope): I must point out that this is a very narrow question as to whether people who occupy under lease or other arrangement should be included or not. The question is whether the relief given to those who occupy under a lease before the date mentioned shall be extended.

Mr. GRAHAM: The intention of the Bill according to the propaganda carried on throughout the country by that portion of the Press supporting the Government and by the Government themselves is to help industry and to make it possible for more men to be employed, and for some sort of return to be given to those who have invested their capital in the various undertakings. I submit that the Clause as it stands will be read in the Courts and by lawyers generally in exactly the same way as that part of it which applies to agricultural land will be read. We want to provide against that. We want to see a simple, clear and understandable Clause dealing with this matter.

The CHAIRMAN: I think that the hon. Member is arguing on the whole Clause. He will have an opportunity to do that when the Question is put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill." It is a very narrow point as to whether those occupying under a lease later than the period stated should be included in the relief or not.

Mr. GRAHAM: I accept your ruling, Mr. Hope, and will content myself by saying that we want these two lines taken out, so that it will provide that the occupier of industrial land, or the leaseholder of industrial land or heritages, shall be entitled, on any rate becoming due in respect of such land and heritages, to recover from the owner by retention out of rent. That is to say, that he shall keep the money himself. We want it to be made perfectly clear that he should have the right of keeping the money, and not have to hand it over to that party connected with the undertaking who renders no service at all. I sincerely hope that the Government will accept the genuineness of our demand in this
respect, and will accept the Amendment which has been moved. It will then be possible for people in the country, at least those engaged in industrial undertakings, to believe that the Government are animated by the motives that their supporters have tried to make them believe is the case.

Brigadier-General CHARTERIS: The hon. Gentleman the Member for Hamilton (Mr. D. Graham) said, very truly, at the beginning of his speech that he had no doubt that a lawyer would be able to make a complete and competent answer to the case made out by the Mover of the Amendment. I hope that I shall be permitted, not as a lawyer but as a layman, to try to explain why, in my opinion, the Amendment is unnecessary and why it will actually operate in precisely the opposite way from that which the mover and supporter appear to intend. I am not quite sure whether it is clear to the mind of the hon. Member for Hamilton—though I am sure it was to the mind of the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Johnston), who goes into these things deeply—that the seven years' limit does not apply to all leases. It only applies to year by year leases or to arrangements which are not leases. If the Amendment were accepted what would he the result? The landlord would find himself faced either on a tacit agreement or a year by year lease with a perpetual burden on his property. He would have one way of escape, and that would be by at once terminating the tacit agreement or year by year lease and entering into a new lease with the tenant. That new lease would, of course, take no note either of the burden or the benefits in this Bill. If the Amendment were accented, the immediate result would be that the landlord would take steps at once to enter into a new lease in view of the changed conditions, and the tenant would cease to secure the relief provided in the Bill.

Mr. WHEATLEY: Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman think that the landlords would do that?

Brigadier-General CHARTERIS: I have not the least doubt that the landlords would take steps to terminate agreements. New leases would be made taking no note either of the burden or the benefits. That would not mean that
the landlord would put money into his pocket. The position in regard to industrial property is entirely different from that with regard to agricultural property. Any person who has dealt with the question knows that if an industrial landlord dealing with an industrial tenant finds the property burdened with certain conditions his lawyers and the lawyers of the tenant who, after all, are business men, take due note of those conditions in making a new lease. The hon. Member for Dundee, though perhaps not intentionally, was confusing the issue by making it appear that the conditions in regard to agricultural property were the same as those obtaining in regard to industrial property. That is, of course, absurd. An agricultural landlord dealing with an agricultural tenant is in a totally different position from the industrial landlord dealing with an industrial tenant. He views the conditions differently, and is actuated by different motives. The effect of the Bill as it stands appears to be that when the lease terminates, or at the end of seven years, there will be a new lease entered into which will in effect reduce this relief. I think that if the Amendment were accepted it would not only not effect the purpose intended by the mover and supporter, but that it would act in precisely the opposite way with regard to tacit agreements or year to year leases.

Mr. WHEATLEY: The speeches which we hear to-day from the opposite benches are enabling us to understand this Bill much more clearly than we did when the Debates began. We are dealing with the owner of industrial property now, rather than the benevolent gentleman who was described recently; that type of landlord who merely occupies the position of landlord for the good of his health and the social prestige of his estate. May I bring the Committee back to the statements that were made from the Government when this policy was first submitted to the House. We were then told that the sole object of the policy was to help industry, to encourage the manufacturer, to enable him to compete more successfully with his rivals, particularly his foreign rivals, to reduce unemployment and to give realisation, to some extent, to the repeated promises of
the Prime Minister that industry was about to revive. We have departed from all that, and we have learned, on this Amendment and from the speech to which we have just listened, that the object of this portion of the Bill is to assist certain property owners in Scotland.

Brigadier-General CHARTERIS: I said no such thing.

Mr. WHEATLEY: So that the manufacturer in Scotland who has to apply for a lease has to depend upon the generosity of the property owner and not upon the generosity of Parliament.

Brigadier-General CHARTERIS: Surely the right hon. Member is sufficiently wise to know that the terms of a lease depend upon supply and demand.

Mr. WHEATLEY: Let us take a concrete case that will probably arise in Scotland in the ensuing 12 months. It is not the property owner in whom we ought to be interested but the small manufacturer. The great combines are usually in a position to take care of themselves. They can compete successfully with the small manufacturer. The small manufacturer cannot afford to erect the property in which he proposes to carry on his industry; therefore he must lease from a property owner the buildings and land where he is to carry on his business. The original object of the Bill was to help this manufacturer, but now we see, as we examine the Bill, that the small manufacturer is not to benefit much, because if he enters into a lease this year the part of the rates relief that goes to the property owner goes immediately to the property owner. My hon. and gallant Friend may say: "Yes, but that will be taken into account in fixing the terms of the lease." Does he suggest that we are to have a reduction in rent from the property owners, simply because of the benefits that will accrue from this Measure?

Brigadier-General CHARTERIS: What I suggested was that the property owner will be faced with the alternative of making a new lease which would take into account all the altered conditions, or continuing on the lines which I mentioned.

Mr. WHEATLEY: The hon. and gallant Member suggests that there is no need for a Statutory obligation to be put upon the properly owner, and that we should leave the matter to him, because he is such a benevolent gentleman and can be trusted to deal fairly with his tenants. I would ask the Government this question. Why should we to-day, in order to help industry or to reduce unemployment, deliberately put a large sum of money into the pockets of property owners? I want to know, the people of Scotland want to know, and I hope we shall get an answer from the Government. I could see some hope, although I think it is an illusive one, of assisting manufacture by the gifts of public money which we are going to distribute under this Bill, but, what need is there to give money to property owners? The property owners have not complained. There are no unemployed property owners. They have not figured largely in the bankruptcy lists, certainly not in the West of Scotland. They are usually a well-secured, fairly prosperous class of people, much more prosperous than the working classes, who, in the main, will have to pay the subsidy.
It is unfair that if a small manufacturer takes a lease of property after the 1st June, 1928, as the Bill is now amended, he will have no claim to a share of the rates that are now paid by the owner. Under the Bill, a person who is fortunate enough to have a lease will, while that lease subsists, be entitled to get back from the owner a share of the rate relief which the owner receives. That is an admission that, in the view of the Government, it is right that the industrial occupier of the property should have the benefit of the rate relief which the owner obtains at the expense of the taxpayers. We have to look ahead. We are always being told to look ahead. It is not this year with which we are dealing, or next year. We are laying down a policy which will, according to the. Government, not only put industry on its feet in Scotland but keep it on its feet; but in this case, we are not subsidising manufacturers, we are giving a deliberate subsidy to property owners. Is there any scarcity of property owners? Is there any shortage of industrial premises in Scotland? Is it not a fact, as the right hon. Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne) knows, that
there is scarcely an industry but it is over-capitalised as far as property is concerned? We have more mines, and more mills than we need.

The CHAIRMAN: I think the right hon. Gentleman is going a little wide of the Amendment.

Mr. WHEATLEY: I have been tempted to go rather wide. It is a public scandal to take money out of depressed industries in Scotland and to hand it over to property owners. They do not need it. They have not asked for it. They have no right to it, and the country cannot afford to give it to them. The man who enters into a lease to-day will not get any share of the rate relief which will be taken by the landlord. I do protest most emphatically against public money being used in this way, and I hope that the people of Scotland will realise that this money is not going to the assistance of industry in any form whatever. The owner of the property who is going to benefit in this way does not come along in the way that was claimed for that wonderful landlord who was described the other day: the ground landlord who goes round with a hammer in his hand repairing property and putting it in order generally. There is nothing like that claim which can be made here. All these questions of rates, cost of repairs and so forth are always taken into account in fixing the rent. It is most unfair that the property owner should be given a gift of public money in the way that is proposed. Surely, there was never anything more indefensible. I am surprised that hon. Members on the other side who have gone to the hard-headed logical-minded people of Scotland and advocated this Bill should be supporting a proposal such as is contained in this Clause. It is not only the working classes who will protest against this provision, but the small manufacturers of Scotland, who have to depend for their industry upon rented property, who will be up in arms against the Measure when it is explained to them, as I hope it will be explained, within the next two months.

Sir R. HORNE: I have the greatest possible sympathy with the views which have been expressed on this question from the opposite benches, and if I thought that the effect of the Clause would be that the relief which is to be
given to property owners was to pass by the tenant, I should not be in favour of the Clause. Holding those views, it appears to me perfectly clear that if the conditions to which the right hon. Gentleman referred to, exist, the Amendment would be entirely futile to cope with them. The reason why the concession of a reduction in rates is limited to people who have taken out their leases before the 1st June, 1928, is that the people had made their bargains before that date on the old conditions. They knew that there were certain obligations of rates on the landlord which he had to pay out of the rent, which was fixed when the lease was made. Accordingly, it would be entirely improper to allow the landlord to retain the full amount of the rent which he had got on the basis of burdens to which he was then subject, but which he will no longer have to bear when the Bill becomes law, and at the same time allow him to have this advantage at the expense of the tenant. Accordingly, so far as all leases are concerned which were entered into before the Bill was brought in, it was right and proper that the concession which the landlord gets in the way of rates should be shared with the tenant upon the basis that, undoubtedly, in rent, rates are taken into account. As far as any person is concerned who makes a lease after the date at which this Bill was introduced, the conditions are entirely different, because the rent which the landlord is going to ask will be conditioned by a lower system of rates, and, accordingly, in making his deal with the tenant, the tenant will take into account the fact that the landlord is having a certain concession in rates and that, therefore, the rent ought to be reduced by that amount.

Mr. WHEATLEY: Does the right hon. and learned Member really think that that is the economic basis on which rents are fixed; that the tenant goes to the landlord and asks him how much rates he has to pay, what is the cost of his repairs, etc., and on that he asks for a reasonable rent?

7.0 p.m.

Sir R HORNE: I know quite enough about business to know that when a person is offering a rent he undoubtedly takes into account the burdens that have to be borne. Otherwise, he is making a very uneconomical arrangement. I am
surprised to hear that the right hon. Gentleman thinks that these things are not taken into account by business men. I am certain that the industrial community are quite enough awake to look after themselves, and that in any bargains made subsequent to the passage of this Bill they will undoubtedly and seriously take into account what has been done in the way of relief of rates upon the particular buildings let to them. Hon. Members opposite will say to me, "Yes, but the landlord is in a very powerful position. He is a rack-renter. He is a man who will take blood out of a stone. He will not let them have anything." Let me assume that that is the attitude of the landlord, although I do not believe that it will be. In my view he will act fairly, not from any reasons of philanthropy or benevolence, but because he recognises that he is not going to get anything more than an economic rent, and that it is not to his interest to kill or stifle the trader or do anything in any way to injure the trade which yields his rent. Let me assume, however, that all that is wrong, and that the landlord is a hard-hearted skinflint who is determined to exact the last shilling that he can get from his tenant. How is this Amendment going to help the tenant? Its effect is that, with regard to all future leases as well as those at present existing, the same division of the rates will continue. But if the landlord is the hard hearted gentleman looking after his own interest that has been described, he has only to put up the rent by so much more on the ground that the tenant is getting all these advantages, and the Amendment comes to nothing at all. For these reasons, though I sympathise with the principle that has been expressed, I am entirely against it.

Mr. WILLIAM ADAMSON: I expected that we would have the sympathy of the right hon. Member for Hillhead (Sir H. Horne), though I was a little surprised at the attitude he took in his speech. The object of this Amendment is to help industry. The Government and their supporters have loudly and blatantly declared in this House and in the country that the object of this Bill is to help the depressed industries and 'agriculture. The undoubted object of this Amendment is that the full benefit proposed by the
Government under its de-rating scheme shall go to those who are bearing the, burden of the depression in our industries. If it is the case that our Amendment, if carried, would place those in industry in the untenable position described by the right hon. Member for Hillhead, then surely he should be assisting us to impress upon the Government the necessity of putting in some other safeguard which would prevent the landlord from taking all the advantages that are to come from the de-rating proposals of the Government. If the words we are proposing here are not suitable, he, As a lawyer and as one sympathising with our proposals, should be assisting us to find a form of words that would protect industry from the greedy landlord who wants to take for himself the full benefit of de-rating.
The Government and their supporters have done their best to make it clear to the country that these proposals are for the specific purpose of helping industry. We, therefore, expect the sympathy of the Lord Advocate when he comes to reply, because the object of this Amendment is undoubtedly to help the depressed industries in Scotland. A considerable proportion of the industries of Scotland are struggling for their lives under present conditions. The struggle did not end on 1st June, 1928, but will continue for some time to come even under the most favourable conditions. If they are to get the assistance that the Government profess to give them, then some safeguard should be inserted to prevent a landlord of the kind described from walking off with the benefits of the Government's de-rating proposals.

Mr. MAXTON: If I understood the argument of the right hon. Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne), it was directed not so much in support of the Government's Clause as in demolition of the Opposition's Amendment. This is not the first time in Committee of this House that when an Amendment did not fully meet the point which it was desired to attain, by friendly arrangement a form of words was arrived at to carry out its object when both sides were agreed that the object was a desirable one. I take it the position of the right hon. Gentleman is that it is desirable that the full benefit of this concession should
go to the occupier, the active industrial producer, the man who is going to show enterprise and who is developing new industries or old industries in a new way, and so employ people at present unemployed and render his quota of service to the defeat of the stagnation which has come over industry. I gather that it is his desire that the benefit should go to such a man, and not to the passive drawer of rent. He finished up, however, on a very dismal note by informing this Committee that, try as they pleased, they could not devise any form of legislation which would prevent the owner of property from getting the profit in the long run.

Sir R. HORNE: I did not say that.

Mr. MAXTON: That seems to me the only deduction that I can draw with my very simple Glasgow mind.

Sir R. HORNE: The same as my own.

Mr. MAXTON: Yours is of the west; mine is of the east.

Sir R. HORNE: The wise men came from the east.

Mr. MAXTON: So it is popularly alleged. It seems to be rather an appalling statement, and an endorsement of the suggestion I offered to the Committee last night with reference to agricultural landowners, that the only possible final solution of this difficulty was to expropriate the landowners.

The CHAIRMAN: It cannot be in order to move an Amendment on that point which would not be within the Title of the present Bill.

Mr. MAXTON: I am sorry to have incurred your displeasure in this matter. I regret that I had left my present function of a Member of the House of Commons and had reverted to the profession by which I formerly got my living. I was endeavouring to teach the right hon. Member for Hillhead a few elementary economic principles. I do not think it is outside the wit of this House to devise an Amendment. Personally, I believe that the Amendment which has been moved does cover the ground. The right hon. Gentleman assumes that every transaction of this description is between a willing buyer and a willing seller. He knows perfectly well that such a trans
action is the exception, and not the rule. He knows that the man wanting industrial premises invariably wants them in a particular place. His desire to have them is decided by supply of raw material, by supply of labour in the vicinity accustomed to the type of process he proposes to carry on, and by the convenience of transport facilities, either by road or by water. The man who is going to carry through some industrial function has his plans made on the assumption that he can carry it through at some particular geographical situation. He is an anxious buyer going to an unwilling seller. In these circumstances the unwilling seller is able to impose his terms on the buyer, and knows that the fact that the man owning the property is secured certain reliefs by the legislation of this House will riot enter as a factor into the fixing of the price. The seller of the property will demand the highest market price he can get. The active industrial producer, the, man whom it is intended to help by all this legislation, is going to be exploited once more, and any possible reduction in the price of his commodity which the Government hope to give him by this legislation will be taken away from him, and put into the pocket of the passive owner of property who is taking no part in the work of stimulating the production of this country. Therefore, I urge the Committee to support this Amendment, and to give effect to what was avowed to be the intention of the Government in introducing this legislation.

The LORD ADVOCATE: I am divided between a desire not to appear discourteous to the Committee and a desire not to repeat arguments which, I am afraid, I have used more than once. It may interest the Committee to be reminded, with regard to this particular form of relief, that, in effect, there will be half as great a relief applied as a whole on the occupier's rate as on the owner's rate, because there are certain rates levied on occupiers only, and everybody knows that these premises will mostly be in towns and the rates are levied more heavily upon occupiers than upon owners. The Committee will also bear in mind that probably the bulk of the premises in question, and certainly the most valuable ones, will be occupied by owners whom this present question
does not affect at all. The position of the Government is just the same as it was on similar arguments in other cases. We are wholeheartedly in agreement that, because of this new form of relief, it is fair to correct the conditions under which existing contracts have been entered into.
We equally believe that the right thing to do is to leave the parties free, on the basis of this new fact and circumstance, which is relevant to the fixing of rent, to contract again, and our views appear to be confirmed by the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton), who appears to think that the only cure for it is nationalisation. If it is true that nothing will prevent this benefit going to the landlord, as hon. Members opposite say, what difference does it make whether you accept the Amendment or not? Landlords, apparently, are a class distrusted and suspected by hon. Members opposite, even in connection with a comparatively innocent Amendment. The argument has been stated more than once previously, and I do not propose to detain the Committee any longer, except to say that we cannot accept the Amendment.

Mr. MAXTON: I want to ask the Lord Advocate whether this does not put the occupier of industrial premises in Scotland on an entirely different footing from that of the occupier and user of industrial premises in England. The position as between landlord and tenant in Scotland under this Clause is absolutely different from that which has been applied to England under corresponding legislation.

The LORD ADVOCATE: It is different already, and it remains different.

Mr. MAXTON: That is not an adequate answer to the essential point of my question. The difference is this: that while the industrial occupier in England, under the de-rating scheme, is going to have effective relief, the industrial ocupier in Scotland is not going to get such relief and therefore Scottish legislation in this matter is absolutely contradictory to English legislation.

The LORD AVOCATE: Not at all. At the present moment the occupier pays all the rates in England, and you cannot get away from that distinction. It is quite different in Scotland where the rates are divided generally half and half
between the two. Therefore, you are starting on a different basis and you cannot apply the same system to both countries.

Mr. WHEATLEY: The Lord Advocate is scarcely covering the whole ground. He knows that under the English system the whole of the relief will go to the occupier of industrial property for whom it is intended, while in Scotland, on leases entered into after the 1st of June last year, only half of the relief will go to the occupier of property used for industrial purposes. Surely he sees that this is going to put a Scottish manufacturer in an unfair position as compared with his English competitor. Is that fair to Scotland? Is it not his duty to defend Scotland? Is it fair that manufacturers in Scotland should be treated differently to that in which competing manufacturers in England are treated? Surely we are entitled to protection?

Mr. JOHNSTON: May I ask the Lord Advocate another question? He has told us that there is a large proportion of owner occupiers. Can he tell us what proportion of rate relief is going to the proprietors of industrial land and heritages and what propertion to the tenants? He has given us figures for agricultural subjects. Can he give us the figures for industrial subjects?

The LORD ADVOCATE: I shall have to get the exact figures. Roughly, it works out at about half as much again. There will be half as great a relief applied as a whole on the occupier's rate as on the owner's rate.

Mr. JOHNSTON: If I put a question down, will he give me a specific answer as to the amount of public money the proprietors of industrial leases are going to get?

The LORD ADVOCATE: I will do my best to give an answer.

Mr. HARDIE: So far we have had no reply from the Government to the statement that the English manufacturer is in an advantageous position as compared with the Scottish manufacturer. I think the Government should face the question; and I hope the Under-Secretary will see the necessity of letting Scottish industrialists know exactly what the position is going to be.

Mr. W. BENNETT: I fancy that my colleagues on these benches are labouring under a complete misapprehension. The whole object of the Government in regard to this Bill has changed. Whatever they may have said last year about it being a measure to assist industry, the position has changed even this afternoon. The right hon. Member for Hill-head (Sir R. Horne), has stated that the reason why a share of the loot should go to the landlords was because they were in the position of investors in the industry, and were only obtaining a small rate of interest, about 3 per cent., and, therefore, as investors, as shareholders, they were entitled to a share of the loot under this Bill.

Sir R. HORNE: May I point out to the hon. Member that I made no such statement. I gave the illustration about landlords investing their capital in farms and farm buildings as a reply to statements of hon. Members opposite, that landlords were a mere parasite. I explained that they were not parasites because they invested their money. I quoted what the right hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley) said about a depositor being entitled to his interest, and pointed out that the landlord was not getting much return in the way of interest on the capital he had invested in land. That is a totally different point and I hope the hon. Member will not confuse the two things.

Mr. BENNETT: What the right hon. Member has just said only confirms my statement. The argument is that the landlord as an investor has a right, because he has invested his money, to share in the money which the Government is giving under this Bill.

Sir R. HORNE: Apparently, it is no good my trying to explain.

Mr. BENNETT: The landlord is claiming a share in the relief under the de-rating scheme because of the fact that he is an investor and has put his money in the business of farming and agriculture. That is quite a different reason to that given in the first place; that the object of this Bill was to give relief to industry in order to increase employment.

Sir R. HORNE: Perhaps the hon. Member will read my argument and reflect upon it, and not misrepresent me further.

Mr. SULLIVAN: I hope the Lord Advocate will reply to the question which has been put to him. It is quite true that the system of rating in Scotland is different to that in England. In Scotland the owner pays one half and the occupier the other half. But that does not apply to the whole of Scotland. In some burghs you may get an occupier paying five times as much as the owner.

The LORD ADVOCATE: In that case he will get five times the relief.

Mr. SULLIVAN: You are going to inflict a big hardship on Scottish industrialists as compared with English. In England they get all the relief but in Scotland the same principle is not applied, because we have a different system of rating.

Mr. SKELTON: May I ask the hon. Member one question? How does he propose to give rating relief if a man does not pay rates?

Mr. SULLIVAN: I do not know what the hon. and learned Member means. If a man does not pay rates he cannot get relief.

Mr. SKELTON: How can an occupier in Scotland who only pays half the rates get relief for the whole amount?

Mr. SULLIVAN: He is to get the same proportion as the occupier in England.

Mr. MAXTON: The hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Skelton) puts what he regards as an insoluble problem to my hon. Friend. He asks, how does a person who does not pay rates get relief? He gets relief by a subsidy from the Exchequer.

Sir R. HORNE: The position would be quite clear if the occupier in Scotland was in the same position as the occupier in England. In that case he would pay the whole of the rates. Unless you can put the whole burden of the rates on the occupier, as in England, you cannot get the same relief.

Mr. SULLIVAN: The right hon. Member for Hillhead knows this question fairly well. The occupier both in England and Scotland pays the rates. In Scotland he pays in one way, and in England in another way. And you are making a difference in the legislation, as between the two countries.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out to the word 'sixteenth,' in line 27, stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 197; Noes, 109.

Division No. 217.]
AYES.
[7.30 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut-Colonel
Burton, Colonel H. W.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles
Butt, Sir Alfred
Galbraith, J. F. W.


Albery, Irving James
Cassels, J. D.
Gates, Percy


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Goff, Sir Park


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Cayzer, Maj.Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth,S.)
Gower, Sir Robert


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Grant, Sir J. A.


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)


Atkinson, C.
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Grotrian, H. Brent


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Hammersley, S. S.


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Conway, Sir W. Martin
Harland, A.


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Cope, Major Sir William
Harrison, G. J. C.


Bennett, Albert (Nottingham, C.)
Couper, J. B.
Hartington, Marquess of


Berry, Sir George
Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington. N.)
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Henderson,Capt.R.R. (Oxf'd, Henley)


Blundell, F. N.
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian


Boothby, R. J. G.
Dalkeith, Earl of
Henn, Sir Sydney H.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Hills, Major John Waller


Brass, Captain W.
Dawson, Sir Philip
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Eden, Captain Anthony
Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)


Briggs, J. Harold
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)


Briscoe, Richard George
Ellis, R. G.
Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.


Brittain, Sir Harry
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Fanshawe, Captain G. D.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Fermoy, Lord
Hume, Sir G. H.


Buckingham, Sir H.
Ford, Sir P. J.
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Fraser, Captain Ian
Hurd, Percy A.


Hurst, Gerald B.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Skelton, A. N.


Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Nicholson,Cot.Rt.Hon.W.G. (Ptrst'ld.)
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine,C.)


James, Lieut-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Nuttall, Ellis
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Oakley, T.
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.


Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.


Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Penny, Frederick George
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Perring, Sir William George
Tusker, R. Inigo.


Long, Major Eric
Plicher, G.
Templeton, W. P.


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Power, Sir John Cecil
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Preston, Sir Walter (Cheltenham)
Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough


Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Radford, E. A.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Ramsden, E.
Waddington, R.


McLean, Major A.
Reid, D. D. (County Down)
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Macmillan, Captain H.
Remer, J. R.
Ward Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)


Macquisten, F. A.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


MacRobert, Alexander M.
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Margesson, Capt. D.
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell
Watts, Sir Thomas


Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Ropner, Major L.
Wayland, Sir William A.


Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Ross, R. D.
Wells, S. R.


Meller, R. J.
Ruggies-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.
White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dairymple


Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Meyer, Sir Frank
Rye, F. G.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Sandeman, N. Stewart
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Womersley, W. J.


Moore, Sir Newton J.
Sanderson, Sir Frank
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Sandon, Lord
Wragg, Herbert


Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.



Nelson, Sir Frank
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl.(Rentrew,W.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Neville, Sir Reginald J.
Shepperson, E. W.
Major the Marquess of Titchfield


Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)
and Sir Victor Warrender.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hardie, George D.
Sitch, Charles H.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Harris, Percy A.
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Ammon, Charles George
Hayes, John Henry
Smillie, Robert


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Hirst, G. H.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Barnes, A.
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Barr, J.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Snell, Harry


Batey, Joseph
Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Bellamy, A.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Stephen, Campbell


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Sullivan, Joseph


Bromley, J.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Sutton, J. E.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Kelly, W. T.
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Kennedy, T.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Lawrence, Susan
Tinker, John Joseph


Cape, Thomas
Lawson, John James
Tomilnson, R. P.


Charleton, H. C.
Lee, F
Wallhead, Richard C.


Cluse, W. S.
Lindley, F. W.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Lowth, T.
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon.J. R.(Aberavon)
Wellock, Wilfred


Connolly, M.
Mackinder, W.
Welsh, J. C.


Cove, W. G.
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Westwood, J.


Dalton, Hugh
Maxton, James
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Day, Harry
Montague, Frederick
Whiteley, W.


Dennison, R.
Murnin, H.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Dunnico, H.
Oliver, George Harold
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Edwards, J. Hugh (Accilngton)
Owen, Major G.
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Paling, W.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)


Forrest, W.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Gardner, J. P.
Potts, John S.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Gillett, George M.
Rees, Sir Beddoe
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Windsor, Walter


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Ritson, J.
Wright, W.


Greenall, T.
Saklatvala, Shapurji



Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Scrymgeour, E.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Griffith, F. Kingsley
Scurr, John
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. T. Henderson.


Groves, T.
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)



Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Shield, G. W.

It being after half-past Seven of the Clock the CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to the Order of the House of 12th December, successively to put forthwith the Questions on any Amendments moved by

the Government of which notice had been given and the Questions necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at half-past Seven of the Clock at this day's Sitting.

Further Amendments made:

In page 33, line 27, leave out the words "sixteenth day of May," and insert instead thereof the words "first day of June."

In line 39, leave out the words "In this Section," and insert instead thereof the words:

"For the purposes of this Section a lease shall be deemed to have been entered into on the date of the term of entry thereunder, and."—[The Lord Advocate.]

Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 199; Noes, 109.

Division No. 218.]
AYES.
[7.38 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut-Colonel
Ford, Sir P. J.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles
Forrest, W.
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn.W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.)


Albery, Irving James
Fraser, Captain Ian
Nuttall, Ellis


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Oakley, T.


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Gates, Petty
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Goff, Sir Park
Penny, Frederick George


Ashley, Lt. Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Gower, Sir Robert
Perring, Sir William George


Atholl, Duchess of
Grant, Sir J. A.
Plicher, G.


Atkinson, C.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Power, Sir John Cecil


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Preston, Sir Walter (Cheltenham)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Grotrian, H. Brent
Radford, E. A.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Ramsden, E.


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Rees, Sir Beddoe


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Hammersley, S. S.
Reid, D. D. (County Down)


Bennett, Albert (Nottingham, C.)
Harland, A.
Remer, J. R.


Berry, Sir George
Harrison, G. J. C.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Hartington, Marquess of
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Blundell, F. N.
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Ropner, Major L.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Henderson,Capt.R.R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Ross, R. D.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian
RuggIes-Brise, Lieut-Colonel E. A.


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Brass, Captain W.
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Rye, F. G.


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Hills, Major John Waller
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Samuel, Samuel (W'deworth, Putney)


Briggs, J. Harold
Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Briscoe, Richard George
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Brittain, Sir Harry
Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.
Sandon, Lord


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Brovn-Lindsay, Major H.
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew,W.)


Buckingham, Sir H.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Shepperson, E. W


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Hume, Sir G. H.
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Skelton, A. N.


Butt, Sir Alfred
Hurd, Percy A.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dlne, C.)


Cassels, J. D.
Hurst, Gerald B.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Cayzer, Maj.Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth.S.)
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Streatfelld, Captain S. R.


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Tasker, R. Inlgo.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Templeton, W. P.


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Couper, J. B.
McLean, Major A.
Waddington, R.


Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington. N.)
Macmillan, Captain H.
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Macquisten, F. A.
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L.(Kingston-on-Hull)


Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Margesson, Captain D.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Watts, Sir Thomas


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Wayland, Sir William A.


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Meller, R. J.
Wells, S. R.


Dawson, Sir Philip
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Eden, Captain Anthony
Meyer, Sir Frank
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Womersley, W. J.


Ellis, R. G.
Moore, Sir Newton J.
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Morrison, H. (Wilts. Salisbury)
Wragg, Herbert


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive



Fanshawe, Captain G. D.
Neville, Sir Reginald J.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Fermoy, Lord
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Major Sir William Cope and Sir Victor Warrender.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pentypool)
Scrymgeour, E.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Groves, T.
Scurr, John


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Ammon, Charles George
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bllston)
Hardie, George D.
Sitch, Charles H.


Barnes, A.
Harris, Percy A.
Shield, G. W.


Barr, J.
Hayes, John Henry
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Batey, Joseph
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Smillie, Robert


Bellamy, A.
Hirst, G. H.
Smith, Rennie (Panistone)


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Stephen, Campbell


Bromley, J.
Hutchison, Maj.-Gan. Sir R.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Sullivan, Joseph


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Sutton, J. E.


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Cape, Thomas
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Charleton, H. C.
Kelly, W. T.
Tinker, John Joseph


Cluse, W. S.
Kennedy, T.
Tomilnson, R. P.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Lawrence, Susan
Wallhead, Richard C.


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Lawson, John James
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Connolly, M.
Lee, F.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Cove, W. G.
Lindley, F. W.
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Lowth, T.
Wellock, Wilfred


Dalton, Hugh
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Welsh, J. C.


Day, Harry
Mackinder, W.
Westwood, J.


Dennison, R.
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Dunnico, H.
Maxton, James
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Montague, Frederick
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Murnin, H.
Williams, David (Swansea, E)


Gardner, J. P.
Oliver, George Harold
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Owen, Major G.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Gillett, George M.
Paling, W.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin.,Cent.)
Potts, John S.
Windsor, Walter


Greenall, T.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Wright, W.


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Ritson, J.



Griffith, F. Kingsley
Saklatvala, Shapurji
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. Whiteley and Mr. B. Smith.

CLAUSE 34.—(Amendment of Section 14 (1) of Act of 1926.)

Amendment made:

In page 34, leave out from the word "shall," in line 8, to the end of the Clause, and insert instead thereof the words,
have effect as if after the words 'said Acts show' there were inserted the words 'the net annual value and also,' and as if the words 'and the amount of any deduction from the gross annual value for the

purpose of ascertaining the rateable value' were omitted."—[The Lord Advocate.]

Clauses 35 (Commencement and provision for the year 1929–30) and 36 (Construction).

Question put, "That Clauses 35 and 36 stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 193; Noes, 110.

Division No. 219.]
AYES.
[7.48 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles
Brass, Captain W.
Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George


Albery, Irving James
Brassey, Sir Leonard
Cohen, Major J. Brunel


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Briggs, J. Harold
Conway, Sir W. Martin


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Briscoe, Richard George
Cope, Major Sir William


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Brittain, Sir Harry
Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islingtn., N.)


Atholl, Duchess of
Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)


Atkinson, C.
Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Buckingham, Sir H.
Dalkeith, Earl of


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Burton, Colonel H. W.
Davies, Dr. Vernon


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Butt, Sir Alfred
Dawson, Sir Philip


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Cassels, J, D.
Eden, Captain Anthony


Bennett, Albert (Nottingham, C.)
Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Edmondson, Major A. J.


Berry, Sir George
Cayzer, Maj.Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Cecil, Rt. Hon, Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Elliot, Major Walter E.


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Chamberlain,Rt.Hn.SirJ.A. (Blrm.,W.)
Ellis, R. G.


Blundell, F. N.
Charteris, Brigadier General J.
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith


Boothby, R. J. G.
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Falle, Sir Bertram G.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Fanshawe, Captain G. D.


Fermoy, Lord
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Ford, Sir P. J.
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Forrest, W.
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Fraser, Captain Ian
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Sandon, Lord


Galbraith, J. F. W.
McLean, Major A.
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Gates, Percy
Macmillan, Captain H.
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl.(Renfrew,W.)


Goff, Sir Park
Macquisten, F. A.
Shepperson, E. W.


Gower, Sir Robert
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Grant, Sir J. A.
Margesson, Captain D.
Skelton, A. N.


Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kine'dlne, C.)


Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Grotrian, H. Brent
Meyer, Sir Frank
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.


Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Mitchell, S (Lanark, Lanark)
Streatfelld, Captain S. R.


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Hammersley, S. S.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Tasker, R. Inigo.


Harland, A.
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Templeton, W. P.


Harrison, G. J. C.
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Hartington, Marquess of
Neville, Sir Reginald J.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Tryon, Rt. Hon George Clement


Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough


Henderson, Capt. R.R.(Oxf'd,Henley)
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W.G.(Ptrsf'ld.)
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian
Nuttall, Ellis
Waddington, R.


Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Oakley, T.
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Hills, Major John Waller
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L.(Kingston-on-Hull)


Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy
Power, Sir John Cecil
Warrender, Sir Victor


Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)
Preston, Sir Walter (Cheltenham)
Watts, Sir Thomas


Horlick, Lieut. Colonel J. N.
Radford, E. A.
Wayland, Sir William A.


Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Ramsden, E.
Wells, S. R.


Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Rees, Sir Beddoe
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Reid, D. D. (County Down)
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Hume, Sir G. H.
Remer, J. R.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Hurst, Gerald B.
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)
Womersley, W. J.


Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Ropner, Major L.
Wragg, Herbert


Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Ross, R. D.



King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Major Sir George Hennessy and Mr. Penny.


Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Rye, F G.



Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)



NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (File, West)
Groves, T.
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hall, F. (York., W.R., Normanton)
Shield, G. W.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Ammon, Charles George
Hardle, George D.
Sitch, Charles H.


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bliston)
Harris, Percy A.
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Barnes, A.
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Smillie, Robert


Barr, J.
Hirst, G. H.
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Batey, Joseph
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Bellamy, A.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Stephen, Campbell


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Sullivan, J.


Bromley, J.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Sutton, J. E.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Kelly, W. T.
Tinker, John Joseph


Cape, Thomas
Kennedy, T.
Tomilnson, R. P.


Charleton, H. C.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Wallhead, Richard C.


Cluse, W. S.
Lawrence, Susan
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Lawson, John James
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Lee, F.
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Connolly, M.
Lindley, F. W.
Wellock, Wilfred


Cove, W. G.
Lowth, T.
Welsh, J. C.


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Westwood, J.


Dalton, Hugh
Mackinder, W.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Day, Harry
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Whiteley, W.


Dennison, R.
Maxton, James
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Dunnico, H.
Montague, Frederick
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Murnin, H.
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Oliver, George Harold
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Gardner, J. P.
Owen, Major G.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Paling, W.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Gillett, George M.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Potts, John S.
Windsor, Walter


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edln., Cent.)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Wright, W.


Greenall, T.
Ritson, J.



Greenwood, A, (Nelson and Colne)
Saklatvala, Shapurji
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Griffith, F. Kingsley
Scrymgeour, E.
Mr. Hayes and Mr. B. Smith.


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Scurr, John



Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 37.—(Discontinuance of grants.)

Mr. ERNEST BROWN: I beg to move, in page 35, line 11, to leave out from the beginning, to the word "in," in line 12, and to insert instead thereof the words:
Such grants as are payable out of the Consolidated Fund or the growing produce thereof into the Local Taxation (Scotland) Account.
This Amendment has for its purpose to effect an alteration in the method of distributing the general Exchequer contribution. We move to leave out from the operation of the block consolidated grant the health grants and the road grants. I believe that there is no single issue raised in the Bill which is causing more disquietude in the country—and I am quite sure that that has been reflected in the minds of the Members of the Government themselves—than the change over as regards health services from the percentage to the block system. We have heard many arguments about the advantages and disadvantages of the two systems. Two main arguments have been used about the advantage of the block system as compared with the percentage system. The first one, and the one which has been most sharply raised, is that it will make for economy, but it is quite obvious that the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland will not use that argument in connection with the health services. However strongly he may press it with regard to the whole rate-borne and grant-borne expenditure, he will not raise that argument with regard to health services, so of course those who favour this particular plan have been driven back to the argument that the percentage system works unfairly as regards the necessitous areas, and that as a matter of fact the percentage system has enabled the more well-to-do to proceed with their health services, whereas the necessitous areas have not been able to do so.
I want to ask the Committee for a minute or two to look at what this means, first of all with regard to Scotland, and secondly, with regard to the City of Edinburgh. We propose to leave out from the operation of the block system the maternity and child welfare grant for Scotland amounting to £157,000, the grant for tubercular treatment amounting to £347,000, the grant for venereal disease treatment amounting to £66,000, the grant for the welfare of the blind amount-
ing to £20,000, and the mental deficiency grant of £76,000, totalling £667,000, with the road grant amounting to £280,800. With regard to Edinburgh, the figures will be: for tubercular treatment £20,900, for child welfare £9,000, for venereal disease £12,000, and for sundry other services £345, totalling together £42,380. If I may take the comparison between the total grant of £2,050,000 for Scotland and the £778,000 for the City of Edinburgh, the Committee will have some idea of the magnitude of the proposal.
8.0 p.m.
The first argument that I wish to urge in favour of the proposal contained in the Amendment is that the Committee have already decided that the Government's plan for merging all the public health services under one control in order that they may obtain team work against disease or for maternity benefit, will be hampered by the application of the block system to those services. I think the Under-Secretary will find that it will be hard to shake that view. Indeed, I think I can prove from the Bill itself that the argument I am now using was in the minds of the Government when the Bill was drafted, because I cannot read Clause 50 in any other way The Government themselves take power in that Clause to reduce the grants in the case of inefficient administration which they define in two ways, first of all, cases where not enough money has been spent on these services, and, secondly, cases where there has been, extravagance in regard to these services. That seems to show that the Government themselves are aware that, having departed from the principle of allocating the grant for a specific and definite service to the principle of merging the sum of money so provided in a general grant, they will not be able to control, without other powers, the distribution of the money. That is what has been the cause of the dubiety which is to be found among those who are concerned in forwarding the health services of the country.
The proposal of the Government is that in place of the percentage arrangement previously given there shall be a fixed sum to be included in the general grant. That fixed sum shall have no relation to the actual expenditure on any one of these particular services. Further, that fixed sum shall not merely have no relation to any particular service, but it will
be fixed once and for all upon the moneys expended in the standard year. That I regard as one of the worst of all the elements in the proposal. There can be no assurance—of course the Under-Secretary will urge that the sum given in compensation will make allowance for expansion—that the additional moneys amounting in the first period to £760,000 only for the whole of Scotland, will be sufficient to make up for the money that is to be directed into these channels. This sum of money, being applied on the basis of a particular year, cannot be used to meet the actual expenditure of any other year. We have no assurance that the particular year fixed—1929—will be an ordinary or an average year at all, much less a year calculated to meet expanded services. Indeed, when we read the official answers given as to the present distribution of these services throughout Scotland, we all know that, so far from the means of forwarding these services having been exhausted, in very many cases these services are only in their infancy at present. That is a powerful argument for hesitating before we do for Scotland what we have done for England, namely, to merge these sums of money inside the block grant.
The whole issue may be raised in two ways. First of all, let us assume for a moment that the Government have been wise in saying that they will transfer the health functions from other authorities to the county councils, and to the large burghs as regards the major services. Let us assume that the UnderSecretary—I know he would like to do so—is leading a new crusade for preventive medicine against disease and is asking for more efficiency in the administration of the health services from the new units chosen. Let us grant the Government that they have taken a step forward. Let us put it as high as we can. Let us grant that it is a great idealistic conception—and I believe it is—in order more fully to organise the medical services and, what is even stronger, to enable more whole-time medical officers of health to be appointed because of the wider area and the greater concentration of the services. How foolish it is when, having in view a thing of that kind, to risk—I put it on the lowest ground—the efficiency of your new organisation by departing from the
system of grants which, by general consent, has worked in the direction of increasing and developing the services. There can be no doubt whatever that where the percentage grant has been applied it has been a powerful stimulant to the development of these services.
We ought not to part with this without having some regard to the principles on which these grants ought to be distributed. Surely, we ought to recognise in settling the principles of the ideal system, that State grants to the local authorities are the necessary concomitant of duties which are national in character, or designed to benefit the community as a whole, and are only administered locally for reasons of public policy and convenience instead of being administered centrally. If that be the basis, it follows that the State grant for these services should not be fixed on the basis of local resources or ability to pay, but on the basis of services rendered. These grants should be direct in respect of definite services. That is the core of my argument. These services should rest on the basis of a contractual relationship between the State and the local authorities. The local authorities' part of the contract should be to administer the duties to the satisfaction of the State. The State's part of the contract should be to make equitable payments on a definite basis for, or towards, the administration of the particular duties or services. These are very sound principles. The system now being inaugurated does not fit in with such a basis or with these principles. The only argument I have heard in favour of the change is that the authorities that have used the percentage system have been those that are the better-to-do. The less well-to-do have not been able to use them. If the Government could prove that by their system they can more equitably distribute the money and allocate it to these services, there might be weight in the argument. But the whole system that the Government are proposing will give the lie to that argument, because, whatever may be the proportions distributed with the principle of the weighted population and the formula which determines it, not one penny of a particular sum of money allocated to an area, whether it be a needy or a prosperous area, is allocated to any definite service.
It cannot be said that the country has any assurance that the allocation of these grants inside a general fixed grant, based on an arbitrary system and determined by an arbitrary formula, will enable one single necessitous area to increase its health service as against the other. On the other hand, it can be powerfully argued that such progress as we have had with the development of these services is due to two movements. It is generally argued that the move must come from the centre. I contest that argument. It is true that the basis of service rests on Acts of Parliament, passed in this House and originating in this House, but it is also true that those Acts of Parliament have generally been made possible by the final assent of certain local authorities. This kind of re-distribution of the grant must powerfully hinder experimental work of all kinds in the future among these particular authorities. Therefore, we may lose that local initiative and urge which has helped to make the popular conscience which, in the end, has determined the legislation of these and other authorities through the central chamber.
There are two other points I would like to make. I would remind the Under-Secretary that in the Convention of Royal Burghs Report these significant words—and they are very significant—are to be found:
Almost without exception the financial officers of local authorities are satisfied that the substitution of the block grant system for the percentage grant system will, if introduced, operate to the advantage of the Treasury and to the serious disadvantage of the local authorities. The fixing of the amount of the grant for fixed periods, based on a standard year, will tend to stop all progress, and, in the event of an industrial crisis or a period of severe unemployment, will place an overwhelming burden on the local ratepayers.
I think that sums up the argument from the point of view of finance, but we are dubious in the matter also because of the very structure of the grant now proposed to be made. Surely it cannot be argued by the Under-Secretary that the additional monies in the first period of three years—£750,000—proposed, or that the new guarantee now to be found in the Bill of the retention of the ratio between the first Exchequer contribution and the total rate-borne grant or expenditure for all time is sufficient to meet any expan-
sion. We have to remember two things. We bad to remember first that, in the Memorandum attached to this Bill, it is pointed out that the ratio so determined will only be one-quarter of any increase. The figure as given in the Memorandum, the suppositious increase, is £1,200,000 at the end of the period when the revision comes, and the ratio will be 25 per cent. of that—£300,000—leaving the remainder to be borne by the local ratepayers and, in a larger proportion by the ratepayers who are not de-rated under the scheme. That is, on a narrow assessable basis. In Edingurgh, that basis, argued in terms of a penny rate, means that the yield of a penny rate has gone down from £20,000 to £18,600.
I am sure the Government did not undertake this without serious thought, but I cannot allow this thing to go through without having the chance of moving an Amendment and without urging that the experiment of the police grants of 1890 ought to have warned the Government that the block system is a very grave danger to the local authorities. It leaves the Treasury with a calculable burden, but it leaves the local authorities with a burden which, being incalculable, is a very dangerous burden. It leaves the Treasury, which has many ways of raising money, with that calculable burden, but it leaves the local authority with an incalculable burden and with only one way of raising revenue, and that is by its rating system. The percentage system, with all its defects—and I do not want it to be thought that it has no defects—is simple, it is understood, it is definitely allocated to a particular service, it has aided progress wherever applied, and it does meet definite annual obligations.
The worst effect of the application of the new system will be that, so far from drawing together all those who are in favour of the expansion of health services as a band of brothers who desire to help each other in the great work for preventive medicine, it will set up a competition among idealists which will mean that one will want more money for tuberculosis treatment, another will want more for maternity and child welfare, another will want more for the treatment of venereal disease, and it will leave local authorities with a very grave burden or a change of burdens, and with the
temptation that these moneys may be used for other local needs. That is the meaning of Clause 50. I regard it as a retrograde step. I believe it will hamstring the Government's own scheme for the concentration and better working of the medical services. Therefore, I move this Amendment, hoping that the Government and the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland will be wiser than the Minister of Health in England, and will, for Scotland, as apart from England, cut out at least the health grant, if not the road grant, from the operation of the general consolidated rate grant.

Major ELLIOT: The hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) has undoubtedly raised one of the major issues of the whole of our Debates upon this Bill, and it is an occasion on which this can be examined in a rather favourable atmosphere, because, first of all, it is clear that we are not dealing here with a party issue, and furthermore, that we are dealing with an issue which will confront Governments of successive complexions for a period of many years to come. The great problems of taxation, the great fiscal problems, are undoubtedly going to be more and more important as time goes on. The State has already become a large partner in industry, a partner to the extent of 25 per cent, or it may be 50 per cent. by the weight of the taxation which it imposes, and the direction in which its enormous influence is felt will have a preponderating effect on the development of industry as well as on the development of those social services to which we are now addressing ourselves; and local taxation has, as we all recognise, become in recent years a factor scarcely less important than that of Imperial taxation itself.
Therefore, the problem of the revenues of the local authorities, which was tackled in 1899, which has been tackled from time to time since, which is tackled in this Bill, will, as I say, confront not merely this Administration but future Administrations, and it may well be that on some other occasion, from some other quarter of the House, I may be forced to criticise the actions of some other Administration which is carrying out developments of this scheme to which I would find myself whole-heartedly opposed. Therefore, we have now a distinct problem, the
problem of providing revenue, of deciding from what source the local authorities are to derive the revenues which are the very steam in the boiler of the whole engine. On that, the system of assigned revenues has been tried and has clearly and obviously broken down.

Mr. JAMES STEWART: Why has it broken down?

Major ELLIOT: It might perhaps take me rather far to answer that question, but, in general, we should all agree that the assigned revenues have broken down, because of the de-localisation of finance. In the modern industrial State, with the local revenues derived from no one particular place, it is no longer possible to apply that system. The collapse of the shale industry may only be remedied by revenues drawn from the expanding trade in oil imported into Cardiff, or somewhere else hundreds of miles away. I would go further and say that we all agree that the Exchequer, the great financial engine of the State, must be brought into play to raise a great portion of the revenues which the local authorities are to expend. We are dealing now with the basis on which the Exchequer contribution is to be made towards the needs, the expanding needs, it may be, of the local authorities. The scheme of the Government is the scheme which we are now discussing, and we are discussing it with particular reference to the health services. The scheme is not a stereotyped grant, as the hon. Member seems still to have in his mind.

Mr. BROWN: The hon. and gallant Member is misrepresenting me. I made it perfectly plain that it is a stereotype grant as regards the elements of grants and rates in the Exchequer contribution, and I made it plain that there was a variable sum of money, £750,000. The only part of the grant that is not stereotyped is £750,000; the other is.

Major ELLIOT: This is a grant revised at fixed periods.

Mr. BROWN: No. Two elements are fixed for all time, namely, loss of rates and loss of grants.

Major ELLIOT: I think we are talking of different things. My point is that this grant is not a stereotyped grant, but is subject to the revision of experience.

Mr. BROWN: I cannot agree with that view. We are dealing with a general Exchequer contribution with three elements: Element A, £3,200,000, for loss of rates; element B, which is what we are now discussing, £2,050,000, for loss of grant. Those two elements are fixed for all time, and there is no alteration and no revision of them. The only element in this general Exchequer contribution which is liable to revision is the £750,000 and whatever may be added to that.

Major ELLIOT: But the hon. Member has given away the whole of his case in the last words, namely, "whatever may be added to that," because a sum has to be added to that to preserve the ratio between central and local expenditure which is now existing, and, although he said it was a 25 per cent. relation, yet he is not ignorant of the fact that now the Exchequer is assuming partial responsibility over a much wider field than the field previously covered. Now, the whole of the expenditure of the local authorities, instead of a portion of it, is brought within this ambit; and expenditure on Poor Law services, services which in the past have been among the most expensive services of the local authorities, are now brought within the operation of this scheme, so that any expansion in the Poor Law services such as took place after the industrial depression, which did not attract a penny from the national Exchequer, would, and will now, if ever it occurs, attract a proportionate amount from the national Exchequer. Although it is true to say "£750,000, or whatever may be added to that," yet what would need to be added to that to preserve the ratio in the case of all that local expanding Poor Law expenditure would, as we all agree, have meant to the local authorities a very considerable sum if this guarantee had been in existence in 1919, 1920, or even 1921.
We have, therefore, adopted the method of a grant based upon, first of all, compensation; secondly, a weighted population, a very important factor; thirdly, a permanent increase in the rateable value for every area in the country, and, as well, a substantial sum of new money; and, further to that, a guarantee carrying with it a guarantee of an increase in successive periods if and when local authority expenditure increases. In the
original scheme this sum was to be revised at a five year period, but I submit that a great portion of the hon. Member's argument is cut away by the proposals which we are now bringing forward. This sum is now to be revised in a three year period. Whatever the fears of the hon. Member, he cannot seriously ask the Committee to believe that within a three year period not only will the whole of the sum of the new money have been eaten up, but that the local authorities will be pushed so far against their financial limitations that it will be cramping and crippling the new social services which they are anxious to expand. We have cut down the period enormously. The local authorities themselves did not do more than suggest a three year period of revision, and that has been conceded. The first revision takes place in three years from now, and we can all, surely, admit that the stereotyped grants, such as the grants for the police, which the hon. Member is bringing forward to support his case, were not revised in three years. If they had had in the past the guarantees which we have now of a statutory review within three years, of a further review four years later, and successive reviews at intervals of five years afterwards, I venture to say that the anomalies which have arisen in the case of the police grant would never have arisen at all.
We have this question to consider. Is the proposal of the Government reasonable in close relation to the particular services which we are considering, namely, the health services? I say it is, and for this reason. The essential part of any scheme, as has been said by the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton), is that it should make the money available for these services if the local authority desire to expend it on these services. The principle of percentage grants has worked in many cases satisfactorily, but in other cases it has not worked satisfactorily. There are large areas to-day, represented by hon. Members on the Liberal benches, which, for instance, have no child welfare schemes at all. The central department has no power, at present, to enforce schemes and the local authorities have no money with which to put schemes into operation. The Highland counties will receive a sum of over £80,000 a year
under this proposal and the Government will have power to call for the institution of such services. There is a compulsory element. The Government scheme provides the cash and the necessary compulsion, but we do not believe that compulsion will be necessary. The local authorities themselves, if they have the funds, will desire to put these services into operation. This is not by any means the novelty in our finance and in our health legislation that the hon. Member for Leith seems to suppose. Previously, the vast health field covered by the Poor Law did not attract one penny of grant.

Mr. E. BROWN: A public scandal!

Major ELLIOT: We are about to remedy it.

Mr. BROWN: No you are not.

Major ELLIOT: We are bringing the Poor Law within the ambit of the services which are covered by the general guarantee, and, public scandal or not, let me put it to the hon. Member, that local authorities in the past have not hesitated to develop their health services under the Poor Law. They have not hesitated to develop health services under the Poor Law in Glasgow and in Aberdeen and in many of the cities and counties of Scotland although, in fact, those services were not attracting Government grants. Take the case the other way round. Many hon. Members opposite will remember a famous Debate which took place not long after the Clyde brigade came down to the House of Commons when a number of Members were suspended. The hon. Member for Bothwell (Mr. Sullivan) will doubtless remember that occasion clearly. The Debate arose because of the discontinuance under a previous Administration of certain grants which had been given in aid of the treatment of measles and hon. Members on this side were denounced in unmeasured terms for having countenanced or sanctioned the discontinuance of that expenditure.
It was put up to us that we were slaughtering the children of Glasgow. I was younger and more impressionable then, and I was carried away by those denunciations, and, that year, when we were revising the Estimates, I went to considerable trouble—as the ex-Financial
Secretary will realise—and managed to obtain a substantial grant to be expended on a percentage basis and on an ad koc basis for stimulating the treatment of measles by hospitalisation, particularly in the industrial centres of Glasgow. I reviewed that grant a few weeks ago. What had happened? It had not made one penny of difference one way or the other. When the grant was discontinued Glasgow did not cut down hospitalisation by one day, and, when it was restored, Glasgow did not add to its hospitalisation by one day on account of that grant. The argument that the percentage grant is the determining factor with the local authorities breaks down completely in that specific case. This was acting simply as a general Exchequer contribution and when this sum was given, the rates were reduced to that extent, and when it was taken away the rates were increased.

Mr. SULLIVAN: Why should it be taken away?

Major ELLIOT: What the hon. Member for Leith was contending was that unless a sum were given ad hoc the city or the county would cut down its services.

Mr. BROWN: I did not say they would.

Major ELLIOT: He was contending that if these sums were given ad omnia the city or the county would be unable to maintain and develop its services. A single example of that kind taught me a great deal. I realised that the long-continued and developed health policies of the great health authorities are not deflected one way or the other by the casual offer or even the continuing offer of a percentage grant. They depend on far more stable and permanent things. They depend on the health conscience of the community, on the will of the electorate, on the enlightened health administration of the local authorities. These are the things on which they should depend, and the local authorities ought to be left, as free as possible, vis-è-vis the central authority. The central authority, I am sure, should make its contribution, giving as free a hand as it can to the great local authorities. It should do its utmost, as we are doing in this Bill, to see that the
local authority covers a sufficient area, and has sufficient resources itself to plan and develop such policies. The contribution of the central authority should be given with a view to bringing the aid of the national resources to the help of the local resources which the local authority is able to command. If we can get it to a point where it does not need to exercise its influence by continually holding out a carrot here or a carrot there in front of the running donkey of local administration then we shall have reached a very much happier position.

Mr. BROWN: You are giving them a turnip instead.

Major ELLIOT: I shall not go into a debate upon that matter with the hon. Member. I say that the principle of the local authority itself planning and developing its services with the aid of a contribution, generously devised, and given so as to throw the greatest money where its weight is most needed, and providing for revision at fixed periods, is a sound economic and administrative scheme, and it is the general basis of the proposal which we are advancing here. We are not strangers to this line of policy in Scotland. Our great education grant is not distributed on a percentage basis but on terms analogous to those which we are about to propose.

Mr. BROWN: For a particular service.

Major ELLIOT: It is for a particular service with all kinds of ancillary developments which might or might not be undertaken by a particular authority in a particular matter. It is given in the form of a general Exchequer contribution distributed according to a formula which has many of the elements of complexity complained of in the formula in the Bill. It is distributed on lines which actually give less to certain areas than a percentage grant. Edinburgh for instance has not only less than a fifty-fifty percentage on education but the percentage has actually been diminished in recent years—1926–27, 44.3; 1927–28, 44.4, and, 1928–29; 42.5. I have not heard that Edinburgh has cut down its education or is stinting its children or is starving its schools for defectives on that account. Meanwhile, by the formula, we throw money into other places. Sutherland for instance is getting 79 per cent.
of its educational expenditure and a county like Inverness is also obtaining much above the fifty-fifty proportion of its educational expenditure. We have under our hand the example of a great service fed by a general Exchequer contribution distributed, not on the fifty-fifty basis, but on a basis according to needs. It is on that basis that we ask the House to consider the scheme we are bringing forward. It is on that basis that we have devised the scheme to assist local revenues which we are now bringing forward. In the past we have found this problem a most difficult and intractable one. The problem of the local revenue and its relation to the national revenue has been examined by administration after administration. I do not pretend that this solution is perfect, I do not pretend that it will not need to be revised, but it does lay down broad general lines upon which national and local development can take place. I confidently ask the Committee to reject the Amendment and to support the Government.

Mr. WILLIAM GRAHAM: The Amendment which has been proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) undoubtedly raises one of the most important parts of this Bill as applied to Scotland, and I entirely agree with the observation of the Under-Secretary that we should try to debate it with the care which the subject deserves. First of all, we want to be perfectly clear as to the position which Scotland will occupy if by any chance this scheme becomes the law of the land. We had a certain preliminary discussion on the Financial Resolution. The Government will no doubt contend that they are bound by the decisions reached on the English Bill, but in Scotland it is our duty to notice what is the broad nature of the grants we have been receiving within recent years, and what is involved in the introduction of a block or fixed grant system, although it may be a varying annual amount as applied to these health services. This Clause wipes out the old assigned revenues, it wipes out, on their present basis, the health grants under the headings described in the Bill, and it also wipes out certain road grants. It proposes to incorporate these in an ingredient of the coming general Exchequer contribution. With the
part of the speech of the Under-Secretary devoted to the assigned revenues probably no Member of the Committee will disagree, because right from 1889 and the so-called Goschen reforms it has been plain that, sooner or later, such an allocation of the revenue from a kind of fixed fund would become wholly inappropriate to the development of social and other services. Practically all the Royal Commissions and committees since that time have reported adversely upon the assigned revenues, and it has been one of the miracles of the system of local government in Great Britain that that system should have survised until 1929. It only survived because it became, from the standpoint of finance, a very unimportant element in the general relationship of the State to the local authorities, and so no tears will be shed by any Scottish Member over the disappearance of this fixed and now futile contribution.
Let us observe the position of Scotland as regards those grants to which the Under-Secretary directed attention. I will take the case of education and the police. Unfortunately for our country in some respects, we have been dragged at the heel of the English arrangement in education. It is true, as I suppose the Under-Secretary would argue, that we have got a kind of percentage, which is fixed, of the sum determined for England in terms of the Goschen arrangement; but in practice, and as applied to Scotland, it has become very nearly a block grant. No doubt the examination of the accounts, both upstairs in the Public Accounts Committee and elsewhere, confirms the point that the precise percentage has passed from the normal 50–50 arrangement as between the State and the local authorities. In particular districts in Scotland it is less than that and it is larger in others, but as applied to the country as a whole the theory in regard to education has been that the State was finding one-half of the annual expenditure and the local authorities the other half, although Scotland has tended, because of the arrangements, to be on a form of block grant.
Now let us notice the position of die police. There again, in theory, the position was that there was a 50 per cent.
contribution from the State and 50 per cent. from the local authorities, but as regards both education and police, as was clearly impressed upon the Meston Committee, both the State and local authorities have been overridden by the decisions of national committees, for the adoption of their recommendations has virtually fixed a great deal of the expenditure under both heads. There was the application of the Burnham scale of salaries to the teaching profession, and the application of the recommendations of the Desborough Committee to the police. I wish to make it perfectly plain that from these benches we are not criticising the decision of those committees. We agree that there must be some national basis in order to secure a proper remuneration in these professions, and within the limits of their broad national recommendations there are certain variations which recognise the differing circumstances of localities; but all the same there is a large national element in that expenditure. As regards these important branches of administration England had, so to speak, a form of the percentage grant, no doubt within control, but Scotland was almost literally on a block contribution. So, in so far as the percentage grants survived in the matter of education and police, our country, whose qualities no Member of this Committee denies, was in a kind of financial bondage.
We say that a distinction ought to be drawn between these services and the health services. We say that you can ascertain police costs, and I will make the concession and say that, with our knowledge of the diminishing birth-rate, of school accommodation and the general standard required, we might even know tolerably well in advance what the educational demand will he—although I stand for a percentage system there because of the innumerable duties we have to overtake; but even if we make the fullest concessions of that kind, in that part of the relationship which was already more or less fixed, as applied to Scotland, that argument could never be applied to these new health services —the public health, tuberculosis, the treatment of venereal diseases, the grants under the Blind Persons Acts and certain sanitary or other services, because there we have not the same long
line of experience as in education and the police. We have to consider the acute social conditions both in the country districts and in the crowded industrial centres. The intention was to have an expansive grant and not a wasteful grant, and it was intended to be a State recognition or a public recognition of a supreme national duty in regard to effort ministering to the health of the people. Rightly or wrongly, this was based upon a percentage of 50 from the State and 50 from the local authority. In the case of venereal disease, there was to be a 75 per cent. contribution.
I come now to the real case behind the arguments put forward by the Under-Secretary. With all the friendship that exists between one Scottish Member and another, I contend that the hon. and gallant Gentleman has been putting forward an absolutely indefensible proposal. Let us trace it from the days of the Geddes Committee and supermen, and the bogus economy which followed the artificial conditions of the War. What happened? We had growing industrial depression. There was the vast expenditure during the War period. The result was that we had a strong criticism of the growing expenditure of our local authorities, although in Scotland there has been no charge of waste or misdirection and innumerable tributes have been paid to the efficiency of the services which now come within the percentage grant.
The Geddes Committee was formed. They took evidence from Departments. But many of their recommendations by subsequent analysis have been proved to be perfectly futile. In our analysis upstairs on the Public Accounts Committee, we have shown how ridiculous many of these recommendations were. The Government itself has had to go back upon quite a number of them. With a total disregard of the history of this problem, the Geddes Committee attacked the percentage grants. The outcome of that was the appointment of the Meston Committee and the Terms of Reference were framed in order to get a recommendation in favour of another system For reasons into which it would be useless for me to enter to-night, that Committee never reported and its documents are not available. As however, this matter has been publicly mentioned
I will make one or two observations upon it. I want to say first of all to the Under-Secretary of State that the Scottish Board of Health gave evidence before that Committee directly opposed to every word of the doctrine which he has put forward to-night. They supported the percentage grant system as applied to public health services. There were only two Departments of any standing which made a recommendation in favour of a fixed contribution. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said in the early days of this Government, that he was going to find a method of replacing these percentage grants, and he held out a large hope of economy on that score. But now not even the Chancellor of the Exchequer adheres to the arguments which he used on that occasion. There has been a steady policy which has found expression also within the ambit of the rating reform scheme as applied to Scotland.
I have no hesitation in saying that no Royal Commission, no Committee, and no body which has ever examined this problem have recommended the scheme which the Government now propose to apply to Scotland. How can this be called a rating reform? Householders who put up 70 per cent. of the local rates get no direct benefit under this Bill. How can it be said that you are re-casting your system of Exchequer grant in a satisfactory manner when you leave such services
as education, police, and others on their present basis and pick out the public health services which are reserved for treatment on restrictive lines. That, argument will not hold water. The Under-Secretary did not advance that argument very seriously, and he was more concerned to try to show that we were safeguarded under this Bill. Part of my hon. and gallant Friend's case is that the State must determine its liabilities. That is the principle of the fixed element in the Exchequer contribution.
Let us consider this as applied to Scotland on that basis, and particularly in regard to the health services. First of all, it should be remembered that all these services originated under Acts passed by the House of Commons which the House of Commons is free to amend. In the next place, much has been made of the point that the control of the
central department is complete and efficient. Again you have the presentation to this House of Estimates which are capable of reduction if the House of Commons so decides. Therefore, it is idle to suggest that the local authorities are going to indulge in extravagant expenditure, more especially when dealing with public health administration.
There is every kind of check upon the expenditure provided you exercise it. It is one of the weaknesses of the control of this House that the check upon expenditure is not always exercised in the most efficient way. I have never worried very much about that part of the Government's case. And I am not betraying any secret when I say that the Meston Committee could have indicated methods which would have given much greater freedom to the local services without penalising them in the contribution to local rates and introducing a form of fixed grants. This Bill does not embody any of the real reforms of the percentage system. My hon. Friends on these benches are generally in favour of retaining that system, but we have never said that it cannot be improved.
The Meston Committee would probably have recommended that you should mark off areas on much better lines than those which now exist. So far as that is concerned, it is attempted in a very difficult way under this Bill. We would also have said that you could lay down a certain standard of service in public health, education, or whatever the case may he. Only a general Clause has been put into this Bill for that purpose; but, after all, the difference in regard to finance is the vital difference between what that Committee would have recommended and what the Government now propose. I do not pledge any Member on this side to this suggestion, but the statistical material bearing on these services is notoriously inadequate, and, only for the purpose of contributing to their efficiency—that is to say, getting the best result—I have sometimes suggested that units of cost should be taken, as is done in the case of some services now, and then you would ascertain whether you were getting a good return for your money both nationally and locally, and would develop the services on the best lines,
making, moreover, the best provision that you could for the patients in the hospitals, or for whatever section of the community was affected by the service. All these steps might be taken, but the Government do not attempt that; they take a part of the field—and, in our view, the vital part—and impose this form of regulation on that service.
In conclusion, let us notice what the Government themselves are compelled to do, and let us ask ourselves quite frankly if this is desirable in the case of Scotland. It is plain that they do not trust the fixed elements in the finance of the Bill. From the first day they have not trusted them, because, all along the line, and in their later concessions, they have been driven to make one modification after another. There was a fixed or standard payment in the case of the joint Exchequer contribution, but then they proceeded to say that they would have a ratio of the rate and grant-borne expenditure to the burden on the local authorities, and that that would help them out. In the next place, there was a certain amount of new money. Then, to crown all, they introduced a formula, which has many mathematical attractions, and certainly lends itself to a good deal of subtle debate, but which nevertheless is a limping formula, and is only to come into operation over a term of years, because, quite plainly, the Government could not trust its full blast on the local authorities within the next year or two, or within a shorter period than about 15 or 17 years ahead.
My hon. and gallant Friend argues tonight that new expansion is provided for —and this is his real case—by safeguards, and that it is not going to be penalised. What I would ask him on that point is this: If you are, in fact, providing for expansion in vital public health services, why not leave the percentage grant system alone? It will give you a true expansion; you can make it more efficient; you safeguard the local authorities; you give them the encouragement which they deserve in this matter, and you cover the field. Within the limits of the Bill as applied to Scotland, it is idle and useless to have this difference and say that you are doing anything of a genuine character in rating reform.
9.0 p.m.
That is our case against this Clause. If the Government pass it, the Under Secretary will recognise that in the years ahead it will be revised, altered, and probably abolished. I should think that that is the inevitable result. The Government seek to indicate that the position is safeguarded, but we do not agree. We think that it would be infinitely better to continue this method in what is a new service, to give it a longer trial, to add to it those improvements which we all know can be added, and, above all, not to take away the measure of freedom from this one part of the relationship of Scottish local finance to the national Exchequer which we have so far preserved for the country to which we belong.

Mr. J. STEWART: My reason for rising, after the very eloquent speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham)—I cannot pretend to follow him or to be nearly so interesting—is to deal with some of the local aspects of this matter, and to examine them with a view to indicating the line along which this proposal is going to lead. On this side of the Committee, the block grant is looked upon with suspicion. We believe that it will not work out, as is stated by those who are proposing it on behalf of the Government, in the interests of efficiency and development in our social services. In the past, our local authorities—not merely the corporations and town councils, but the parish councils—have had every reason to suspect anything in the nature of a block grant. In 1858, for the express purpose of stimulating and coaxing them to do certain much-needed work, they were given the promise of a 50 per cent. grant towards medical relief. Then that was whittled down until, in 1897 or 1898, the grant was stabilised at £20,000.
As the years went on, and the services naturally developed owing to the growth of public opinion as to what was requisite, the amount required for these services was greater than ever, but a block grant—not, perhaps, as it is described here, but still something in the nature of a block grant—was allotted to Scotland regardless of the expenditure in connection with these services. To-day, instead of getting anything like 50 per cent. for these services, we are
getting something nearer to 3 per cent. It has been even worse in the case of the lunacy grant and of the nursing grant, and altogether it makes those who have had some experience of local government hesitate in accepting the proposition, though we have no doubt—I, at least, have no doubt—that it is made in all sincerity by the Government, that the position of the authorities is not going to be worsened but bettered, and that, with the revision that will take place from time to time, there is no possibility of their losing. As I have said, our experience of the past does not lead us to \believe that with the best intentions in the world this policy will be continued. If it had been, the position would be very different from what it is now.
Quite recently in Scotland, and in Glasgow in particular, the public health authorities were coaxed to go in for the hospital treatment of measles and whooping cough, which in large industrial centres are endemic and never absent from our midst, and which sometimes grow to alarming proportions and are responsible for a great many of the infantile deaths that take place. Of course, the poorer the locality, the higher is the death rate from these diseases, and not merely the death rate in numbers, but the percentage death rate as compared with the number of children that there are in the various localities. In the well-to-do localities, this thing sinks almost to nil, but as you go down the scale, and reach the worst housing and social conditions, you find a steady increase. The Board of Health —and I desire to pay my tribute to their humanity and their desire to improve the conditions—coaxed, as I have said, the local authorities to increase the development of the treatment of these diseases, and they gave us a grant of £20,000. The 50 per cent., however, ultimately became a 10 per cent. grant.
To-day the average expenditure of Glasgow for the treatment of measles and whooping cough is £21,000, and, instead of getting the £10,500 which was promised by the Government, they are now only going to receive £4,500. That does not lead me to believe in block grants, although we are told that it is going to lead to efficiency and to development. T think I heard someone say the other night—I am not sure
whether it was from the Government side or not—that when an authority was called upon to do something somehow or other the machine creaked, and it did not move at all quickly, and that sometimes years elapsed before it was possible to get the authority to do a very simple thing. There was a promise made to us that we were going to have less bureaucracy in local administration and that more freedom was to be given to the local authorities; that while they would get their grant there would not be the same kind of compulsory inquisition as to how the money was to be spent or as to how the authorities were to be conducted.
I have only met one or two men who have said that they understand this formula. I make the confession that, owing to my lack of education or something of the kind, I cannot understand the formula, and I believe that if hon. Members generally were to get up they would only be able to repeat my story. I believe that on all sides of the Committee that confession would be made. As far as I do understand, however, certain grants are to be given and divided according to it, and the authorities are to be left free to spend them or part of them in the best way possible. Therefore, in the Highland Counties referred to by the Under-Secretary to-night, instead of the money being spent on the development of child welfare or on nursing or on hospitals for the treatment of tuberculosis, we may have the authorities spending it on something which they may consider of greater importance. Ultimately, there may be some power brought to bear upon them by the central department to make proper provision for dealing with health matters in their particular areas. I believe that that is quite a possibility. Child welfare is one of the services in respect of which we are going to have a block grant. We have placed an Amendment upon the Paper, asking that maternity and child welfare should be excluded from the system of block grants and that the percentage basis should be allowed to continue.
Last year, Glasgow spent a total of something like £116,000 on child welfare, and of that amount we received £53,000 from the Government, practically a 50
per cent, contribution, hut now in the standard year the grant will be based upon what is being spent in that direction in conjunction with other things. Glasgow is contemplating a much needed development of its child welfare service. The maternity work of our city, while it is done, I think, as well as that in any large community or centre in Britain, is not being done to the satisfaction of the people or of those responsible for the administration of affairs in the city. There is a proposal to develop the maternity side by providing more maternity hospital accommodation, which is very much needed, as there is an undoubted shortage. Supposing we do this and undertake the capital cost and then begin to bring people under treatment, at the end of three years, when the revision comes along, we may not get the advantage under the block grant system in respect of any additional developments that may be taking place. Therefore, we shall have this tremendous outlay in the city at a time when the rates are rising very considerably. The consequence may be that under the proposed block grant system no provision will be made for treatment.
We also require and are contemplating the provision of country homes and nursing homes for mothers with young children. At the present time, we maintain mothers in nursing homes, but we can only find accommodation for a very limited number. We cannot provide accommodation for anything like the number who require such treatment. In desiring to expand in that direction by providing nursing homes for mothers and homes for young children—a kind of convalescent home—we shall again be handicapped, because we shall not be getting the 50 per cent. grant. I do not know of any authority in Scotland that is dealing with child welfare or which is making an effort to deal with the problems of bad health and the necessity of developing the health services in the interests of the community which has not protested against the reform suggested in this Bill.
We have further to deal with the question of the tuberculosis grant. In Glasgow, at the present moment, we are spending £220,000 on the treatment of tuberculosis. We hope to open a new
hospital this year—it certainly will not figure in the calculations of the standard year—which is costing in round figures £400,000, with 440 beds, each bed costing about £1,000. The rate of maintenance in Glasgow for a tuberculosis patient in our hospitals runs to over 54s. per week per patient. When the hospital has been built, we shall have to face the fact that this new institution has cost £400,000, and that all the charges for interest and sinking fund will have to be added to the maintenance, of cases, with the result that the cost per patient per week, including the cost of treatment and administration, will run from 55s. to 60s. The Government would have best served the interests of Scotland if, while determined to institute the block grant for roads and other services, they had maintained the percentage grant in regard to health services, at the same time taking, if need be, more powers to deal with authorities that were not doing their duty in providing proper health services.
In the case of the poverty of the localities, such as is to be found in the Highlands and the Islands, where they are unable to provide a proper health service, the Government ought to have been prepared to raise the grant. There is a, precedent for doing that. It will be remembered that the Government came to the local authorities and said that venereal disease was causing immense ravages in the community and that the local authorities ought to take the matter up. They gave us not the 50 per cent. grant but the 75 per cent. grant, in order that we would undertake the work. It was only in 1915 that the Government of the day passed its Notification of Births Act, thrusting upon local authorities, willy-nilly, the responsibility for child welfare. In that matter they acted more wisely than they knew. To-day, in my opinion and in the opinion of others on this side of the House, the action of the Government in this part of the Bill will destroy initiative, in some respects. If the work is going to be done, it is going to be done under the power of compulsion, and where there is no desire to carry out the work, or whether there is a sense of grievance or a feeling that they are being wronged, financially and otherwise,
the tendency will be that the compulsion will not succeed. I hope that, even at this late hour, the Government will consider doing away with the block grant so far as maternity and child welfare are concerned.

Dr. DRUMMOND SHIELS: It will be agreed that this subject is one of the most important of those arising in connection with the Bill. We have already had some powerful speeches dealing with it. The Under-Secretary defended the block grant system, and, in the circumstances, he did well, but he was defending a very difficult proposition. A very simple test in this matter is to ask whether the first impulse for a change from the percentage grant system came from the medical authorities in the public service or from the finance department of the public service. I do not think it is necessary even to have the confirmation which the right hon. Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham) gave us in regard to the attitude of the Scottish Board of Health on the percentage system, to realise that no medical authority would have pleaded for a change from the percentage to the block grant system. Therefore, we can trace the original impulse for the change to the Treasury. The change in the system with regard to the public health services has, quite obviously, been made because these services are the fast developing services. In many cases, they have doubled and trebled in amount since they were instituted. The harm which we think will be done by the block grant system has, no doubt, been modified to some extent by the substitution of three years for the first five-years period. That will enable ultimate adjustments to be made, but even that modification has only been granted after very strong pressure by the local authorities.
I am particularly interested in child welfare and maternity, and I think there is a very special case for those services being favourably considered. I am hoping, still, that even if all the other services have to come under the block grant system, an exception will be made in favour of child welfare and maternity. Very great general public interest has been aroused in the question of maternal mortality. We know that the Minister of
Health, the Ministry of Health, and the Scottish Board of Health have made investigations into the subject, and that there have been commissions and committees set up to deal with it, some of which are still sitting. The subject is a difficult one—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must not travel too wide, seeing that he has a later Amendment on the subject of maternity and child welfare.

Dr. SHIELS: I understood that we were to have a general discussion.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That is so. I do not mind the hon. Member referring to the subject, but he must riot develop it too far, seeing that he has a later Amendment on the Paper.

Dr. SHIELS: I understood that an arrangement had been made to have a general discussion which would include all the Amendments.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Member does not wish to do more than formally move his Amendment, I raise no objection to his dealing with it now.

Dr. SHIELS: That is what I propose to do. It is not easy to allocate the causes of maternal mortality, but one thing has been definitely settled, and that is that ante-natal supervision of the mother does very definitely lessen this maternal death-rate. An adequate antenatal service in every centre of population is absolutely essential. At the present time we have not an adequate service. In Edinburgh, Glasgow and other cities we have a fairly good service, but even in those places the number of centres is not sufficient, while the accommodation and comfort of them is very far from being what it should be. In other places things are worse. I want these places to be such that women will go willingly and readily to receive the treatment and attention which will mean so much to them at a later date.
With regard to the question of child welfare, I agree with the hon. Member for St. Rollox (Mr. Stewart). The last few years have been economy years in the public health committees of most of the town and county councils of Scotland.
I know in Edinburgh they have been contemplating a scheme for debilitated children which was to cost about £25,000. I understand that it is very uncertain now whether that will go on, because, obviously, this last has been the standard year, and any expenditure over and above the amount of that standard year for the next three years will fall on the ratepayers. The new money, about which the Under-Secretary was speaking, is not likely to be nearly adequate to meet the developments which would normally nave taken place under the percentage system. I gave figures in connection with the subject of antenatal work on the Second Reading Debate, and I will not repeat them now. I would, however, like to emphasise that, in my opinion, and in the opinion of many authorities who have studied this subject, it is a service which urgently needs developing, it saves lives, and that if it is taken out of the percentage grant system, it will not nave that development and local authorities will not push it.
Something was said by the Under-Secretary to the effect that it was owing to the poverty of localities that these services were inadequate or, in some cases, non-existent. I do not believe it is mainly a question of poverty, but that it is rather one of lack of interest and of reactionary authorities who do not or will not understand the importance of these services. I do not see, if that is the case, that a block grant is going to make any difference, because the money is not earmarked for any particular purpose, and there is no necessity for them to spend it on child welfare, maternity, or any other public health service. They can spend it on roads if they like. Therefore, I do not see that the fact that a locality, which has not had child welfare services, is even going to get more money, is likely to ensure that those services will henceforth be started or be made adequate. The hon. Member for St. Rollox has dealt with tuberculosis. There is no doubt that though, fortunately, that disease is not assuming the proportions which it once did, it is yet a very serious scourge, and there are by no means too many beds available in Scotland for patients. There are in the slums and tenements far too many consumptive people who are a danger not only to themselves but to the whole community. With
regard to the treatment of venereal disease, I think that is specially endangered under this block grant. We know that it is an unpopular service, and it is also a service which got previosuly 75 per cent. from the State, not 50 per cent. Therefore, the local authorities will now have to find 100 per cent., where they used to have to find only 25 per cent. These very important services will tend to suffer under the new arrangement, especially it the Government carry out the plan which they have suggested, of dropping all assistance in the way of propaganda to impress the public with a realisation of the seriousness of these diseases.
With regard to the blind, I think there is no doubt that they are at present a very neglected section of the community. They are fearful, and, I think, rightly fearful, that under this new arrangement they will have rather cursory treatment from some of the local authorities. I think their fears are not unfounded. In regard to mental defectives, here is one service where we do need a very great advance. Anything based on the standard year will be obviously inadequate. It seems to me that we have never yet realised the tremendous stupidity of educating these defective children up to the age of 16, giving them special teachers and special schools, and then throwing them out at 16, a danger to themselves and to the comumnity, just at the time when they need most attention. That is a service in which I really am surprised the public do not take more interest, and especially that the Government, who ought to know better, do not see that some change is made. I feel, taking it again on the standard year, that any advance in the treatment of mentally defectives or any desirable new arrangement is very unlikely to accrue. The fact always remains—and I think it is a very important point—that this new method is supposed to make for economy. It has been suggested that the weak point of the percentage system was that the more a community spent the more it got, and therefore a poor community which was not spending so much did not get so much benefit. I suggest that there is no place in Scotland where the health services, however good they are, are completely adequate to the needs of the community. We are living in a time
when the public is being well educated in regard to health matters, and is becoming increasingly favourable to them. The public conscience is more alive than it used to be, and, undoubtedly, there is not only a great need but a great demand for these public health services, arid they ought to go on and develop.
The Under-Secretary called attention to Glasgow and Edinburgh, and suggested that because their services had not suffered by the suspension of certain percentage grants, it showed that there was nothing hindering any such suspension. He must remember that Edinburgh and Glasgow are not typical of the whole of Scotland. The people there are educated and sensitive on these matters, and are capable of exercising considerable pressure. But in many parts of Scotland the position is very different. In the same way the Under-Secretary was speaking about the Poor Law services, and said there was no percentage system there, and, in spite of that, the Poor Law health services had been very well developed. He took the instance of Glasgow. We know that, owing to the presence of a progressive section among the Glasgow local authorities, there has been, certainly in the Poor Law services, an equipment and style of buildings which can hardly be rivalled in any similar class of institution in the whole country. The Stobhill Hospital is one of the finest in the country, but if you go outside Glasgow to other cities and other parts, you will find that the Poor Law institutions on the health side are by no means well equipped. One of the advantages which possibly may come from this Bill by the absorption of the Poor Law system in the larger scheme is that these poorly equipped institutions may be brought up-to-date.
It seems to me that the argument that the Poor Law system, in spite of lack of grants, has developed to a high state of efficiency, is not really one that can be advanced at all looking to Scotland generally. I hope we shall not slavishly follow the lead of England in this matter. Already in the discussions on this Bill we have shown that we are not bound by English precedents. We are glad that we have evidence that the Government, as representing Scotland are not going to
be tied to the heels of England. I should very much like the Government to accept this Amendment and the others relating to it, but if they are not able to do that, I plead very strongly that at least they shall make one exception, take out the maternity and child welfare sections and continue them, even for the first fixed grant period of three years, and allow these services to get a proper hold and to be properly stabilised before they put them under the block grant system. I trust we shall have an intimation to that effect from the Government.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: I do not want to take up much time of the Committee on this question, but I should like to emphasise the fact that women's organisations are keenly anxious that there should be a continuance of the percentage grant in respect of maternity and child welfare services. There is no doubt whatever as to the importance of developing these services. The hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Dr. Shiels) has referred to some of them and I should like to mention the question of the treatment of venereal disease. The City of Edinburgh last year tried to make notification compulsory, but did not succeed. That, however, is an evidence of the great importance of this matter. It should receive the careful attention of the Government, and, so far as localities like Edinburgh and Dundee are concerned, where they are striving to make some advance in the treatment and prevention of this disease, some financial assistance should be forthcoming. In other services there have been developments which, I think, reflect the greatest credit on some of our great municipalities, and Dundee is entitled to a substantial share in any contribution towards the advancement and development of our public health services.
The argument frequently advanced has been that a municipality is induced to spend money on a service because they expect to get 50 per cent. of the expenditure from the Government. The Under-Secretary of State, by the illustration he gave from Glasgow to-night, showed that this is not the case. The Under-Secretary deserves credit for the steps he took to bring about an increase in the grant, although the result was not as good as he would have liked it to be. It shows
that there are strong reasons for the retention of the percentage grant system. The right hon. Member for Edinburgh Central (Mr. W. Graham) has made some startling revelations as to the way in which our affairs are handled. Some of us were entirely in the dark in regard to the revelation he made that the Scottish Board of Health itself strongly recommended the retention of the percentage grant.
One of the strongest arguments in support of the retention of the percentage grant is that since the Bill was introduced we have changed the period of revision from five years to three years and given an additional sum which might be augmented in given circumstances. When we consider the importance of these health services to the poorer people of the community it is doubly necessary that they should be adequately maintained and developed and that we should not risk the possibility of hampering or checking or retarding the substantial progress which has been made in the last few years, with such excellent results to the poorer families of our great industrial towns. Why should the Government pursue the course of altering the percentage grant in favour of the block grant system? If there had been the slightest flaw in the arguments put forward by the right hon. Member for Central Edinburgh, the Under-Secretary would no doubt at once have challenged them. The Government made no serious objection to any of those arguments and, therefore, I think we are warranted in supporting the Amendment.

Mr. WESTWOOD: All who have been associated with local administration entertain the most serious misgivings in regard to the system which is now suggested should take the place of the old percentage grant system. My experience in connection with the administration of a large burgh and also of a small burgh—I have been in both—has proved that it is most difficult to get these administrative bodies to take an active and keen interest in the less popular services. The less popular a service the more difficult it is to get the town council or the education authority, as the case might be, to spend any money upon it. Take for instance the Blind Persons Act of 1920, which gave certain powers to burghs and
education authorities. It was with the greatest difficulty that I was able to get a large burgh to take any interest in the welfare of the blind, despite the fact that they were enabled to get a certain percentage of their expenditure. We are, however, to get no percentage grant now in connection with that expenditure, and where there is to be a general scramble by the various conveners to get the maximum sum possible for their respective departments I can see the blind being left out altogether.
I can see exactly the same thing happening in connection with mental deficiency. It is not a very popular thing to argue in favour of carrying on that particular service. Possibly the day will come when we shall realise that every mental deficient is a danger not only to himself but to everyone else in the community, and consequently, of necessity, a development of that particular service will be required. But the difficulty is to get our administrators interested in this business when there is to be a general scramble for the money in the pool that is to be created. Not only will the less popular and the weaker services suffer, but even education will suffer under these proposals, because the Clause seeks to abolish the Local Taxation (Scotland) Account, from which there has been an ever-growing sum of money going to education in Scotland since the year 1920. In 1919–20 the total sum paid out of the Local Taxation (Scotland) Account for education was £250,000, but by 1928–29 the sum had increased to £546,000. In Scotland the residue of the Estate Duty Grant really goes for educational purposes, but now the Government are going to fix for all time the sum of money that is to be paid for education, and as the sum paid since 1919–20 has been an ever-growing sum, it seems to me that in future the Exchequer is going to gain.
For these reasons, I am opposed to the abolition of the percentage grant system, and I am particularly opposed to the abolition of the Local Taxation (Scotland) Account, because out of that account we were getting ever-growing sums of money for education in Scotland. I believe that this proposal is merely a preliminary. Just as the 1926 Act was the preliminary to the abolition of the whole of our existing local government, so I believe that
this substitution of a block grant system for a percentage grant system is but the preliminary to a stopping of the whole of the percentage grant system in connection with education, and that we shall have the block grant system applied to education just as it is applied to the health services. For these reasons I must support the Amendment.

Mr. SULLIVAN: I wish also to support the Amendment. It is not long since the things that we are discussing to-night were taken up by the public authorities. The Under-Secretary's statement that in a large part of the country practically nothing has been done is perfectly true, and it is probably because so little has been done hitherto that he is able to say we are getting a big increase on the amount previously received.

Major ELLIOT: I was speaking of the education service. For that the county of Sutherland is getting a higher percentage.

Mr. SULLIVAN: In many counties of Scotland practically little is being done for such things as tuberculosis and maternity. It is difficult to arouse public opinion on these questions. A system of percentage grants, however, was an inducement to those who were interested to urge the authorities to take up these questions. It is true that in industrial centres and in big cities much progress has been made. It would be a big pity if we were compelled to stay our hands when we were beginning to get results. The Government come along and say in effect, "The agreement that we came to in the past has now to end. "But the local authorities in a place like Glasgow have to go on, and even when the Government withhold their share of the payment the ratepayers in Glasgow will have to continue to pay, because the local authority cannot stop. During the last week or two we have had a report concerning South Wales and Monmouthshire and the prevalence of rickets amongst the children there. What applies to South Wales applies to industrial areas in Scotland which are affected by unemployment. The percentage of unemployment in the West of Scotland is as high as it is anywhere else, and the children there are just as likely to suffer, but the
Government propose to take away the chance that the child has of getting adequate treatment. We are often appealed to to help in building up a virile race, but how can we do it? If the work that is being done now is interfered with the results will be seen in future years.
Take the case of the blind. It is to our discredit as a people that we have not looked after those who are afflicted with blindness better than we have done in the past, and, instead of pulling back, we ought to try to do something more. Something also requires to be done in connection with medically defective people. I have sat on a bench and tried people who have been brought before me who really were not capable, and it seemed to me that in sitting to try those people who were mentally deficient I was committing a bigger crime than they had committed. What is required is the treatment of the children, and they ought to be treated after they had left school, when at present our responsibility ends. We require to do something after they come into the world. Prison is not a cure. In most cases we are not able to get them certified as lunatics, and the result is that they are hanging in mid air, nothing is being done, and they continue to propagate, which is a very serious thing, and will add to public expense in years to come. In the interests of posterity I think we ought to do something more now instead of doing less, in order to help these people who are unable to help themselves.

Major ELLIOT: I think it would be discourteous to the Committee, after the interesting and thoughtful Debate which the Committee has had on this subject, that no reply should he made from these benches. The right hon. Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham) undoubtedly reviewed the position with that skill and experience with which his long years of study of public accounts have endowed him, but I do not think that he met the real line of argument which I was attempting to address to the Committee, or, if he met it at all, he only glanced at it for a moment and then passed by on the other side. He said "The hon. Member the Under-Secretary devoted his attention to
showing that we were sufficiently safeguarded under the proposal which the Government are bringing forward," but he did not examine that part of my case at all, or at least I did not grasp that he did. The argument which I was advancing for the attention of the Committee was that this was not a stereotyped grant, that this was not a block grant of the ordinary kind, but that this was a grant with fixed periods of revision, and sufficiently frequent periods, especially in its early stages, to make it certain that its operation could be watched and any errors in its operation corrected. That differs fundamentally from the stereotyped grant against which the gravamen of his charge and of the charges of other hon. Members opposite was levelled.
10.0.p.m.
It seems to me that that is the point to which I should ask the Committee to return when making up its mind on this important question. We are not dealing here, I say again, with a stereotyped grant; we are dealing with a grant which moves as a whole with the expansion of expenditure over the whole field of local authority expenditure, instead of over a limited field of expenditure, as it has done in the past. Let me take a single example. Reference was made by one of the previous speakers—I think by the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Clarke)—to the inadvisability of touching the assigned revenues. "We attach great importance," he said, "to the assigned revenues," and he thought it was a most injudicious thing, and a had thing for local authorities, to interfere with their revenue derived from that source. The assigned revenues in 1890–01 were of the order of £731,000, and rates were of the order of £3,658,000. There was a total, then, of £4,389,000, of which the assigned revenues were exactly one-sixth. If we had taken one-sixth of the corresponding expenditure in 1927–8 we should have drawn £3,725,000 on behalf of the local authorities. If the guarantee which the Government are now giving of a fixed relation between the general Exchequer contribution and the rate expenditure had continued to operate throughout this period by the system proposed, we would have drawn £3,750,000, instead of which the local authorities drew only £1,125,000.
Now I can understand the objection of local authorities to a scheme which, starting with one-sixth, derogates so rapidly as to give them only £1,125,000 in 1927–8 as against the share which they should have had, namely, £3,750,000. It seems to me that here is a definite set of proposals which are well worth the attention of the Committee, which introduce a novel principle, and which, I think, remain unaffected by the criticism which the right hon. Gentleman the late Financial Secretary to the Treasury has launched against them.

Mr. WESTWOOD: I specially referred to the amount of money which was paid out of the taxation of Scotland, and the Under-Secretary has not dealt with that particular point. That was a sum of money which grew from £250,000 in 1919–20 to £546,000 in 1928–29, and under Schedule 4 of the Bill you are giving no possibility of that grant growing. You are stereotyping that grant on the total amount of money paid from the local taxation account in 1928–29; that is to be the stereotyped amount to be paid for all time into the Education (Scotland) Fund, according to Schedule 4.

Major ELLIOT: The hon. Member was discussing the general position of the assigned revenues. We are discussing one particular item against another. Nobody can deny that under the assigned revenue scheme, there has been an inelasticity of revenue. By this Bill elasticity is restored to the revenues of local authorities by the device of the general Exchequer contribution bearing a fixed relation to the expanding expenditure of local authorities. Let me point out again that every single example which hon. Members opposite gave proved that local authorities were not deterred from increasing their expenditure by the fact that an immediate increase of grant from the State was not forthcoming. The Poor Law, the police—grant after grant —were instanced by hon. Members opposite, grants which originally were not paid, and which formed a considerable proportion of the expenditure. The hon. Member for St. Rollox (Mr. Stewart) gave as an example the grant which was given for medical services for the Poor Law, which at the beginning was of the order of a fifty-fifty grant, but which had fallen away in later years
until it became a grant of 3 per cent. Does he not see that that vitiates his whole argument that the local authorities will refuse to expand their expenditure because they are not immediately sure of recoupment by the central authority? If the expenditure is good, if the expenditure commends itself to those in charge of public funds, the local authorities will undertake it. What this scheme provides is that if the local authorities do so undertake expanding services, then the general Exchequer contribution will reflect that in its successive revisions in the fixed grant periods.

Dr. SHIELS: Is that not true only of progressive communities such as we know the City of Glasgow to be? The Under-Secretary for Scotland cannot say that that is true of other communities in Scotland which have shown themselves backward and defective in these services.

Major ELLIOT: Of course the cities which the hon. Member (Dr. Shiels) and I represent we consider are the most progressive parts of Scotland, but no part of Scotland would admit the charge of being backward and defective. Even if an authority were backward and defective, let me point out that the expenditure on services undertaken by that authority will be reflected not merely for the benefit of that particular authority but also for the benefit of all Scotland. I do suggest that the the new principles upon which the grants are based make a novel departure, and are something quite different from the old stereotyped grants fixed for all time, against which hon. Members opposite have rightly launched criticisms. This scheme provides for a flexibility that hitherto has not existed in the relations between the local authorities and the central authority. For that reason, I again commend it to the favourable consideration of the Committee.

Mr. E. BROWN: The Under-Secretary complains that we have not appreciated the strength of his argument, and I make the same, complaint against him. He persists in saying that this grant will be revised. I persist in saying that that is an inaccurate way of stating the facts. Here is a sum of £6,000,000 in Scotland and of that all but £750,000 is fixed, once and for all, and no revision at the end of three, four, five, ten or twenty years
will alter it. The only possible way to get an alteration is if, in any successive period, it is proved that over the whole realm of rate and grant-borne expenditure there is an increase. If there is, then the increased guarantee given provides that 25 per cent. of that increase shall be borne by the Exchequer. That is how the ratio works out in the Memorandum itself. May I point out, with all respect to the Under-Secretary, that he cannot say that that is a basis which should be applied to this particular service, so sensitive and in many cases so novel.
I have a letter here from a county clerk in the rural part to which the Under-Secretary referred in which it is pointed out that they have not yet begun their work. His trouble is that because they had not begun their work in the standard year such sums as it may be proposed to apply to these services in the future will not rank in the original block A or B inside the general Exchequer contributions. The Under-Secretary seems to take it for granted that he can separate, over the whole realm of rate and grant-borne expenditure, such an increase as may come on these particular services. That cannot be done. It may be that with the increase in certain areas of expenditure on these particular services there may be a fall in the expenditure on other services outside this grant. But, reckoning the total estimate of rate-borne and grant-borne expenditure of the whole country to which the ratio applies, there will not be an increase of the guarantee, and the £750,000 may be less if there is a diminution. The Under-Secretary must remember that he is not dealing with a case similar to that which he quoted in reply to the hon. Gentleman the Member for St. Rollox (Mr. J. Stewart). He is now reckoning with the whole field of varying services, and 20 per cent. of the whole relations of the total rate-borne and grant-borne expenditure of the

country will be definitely allocated by this grant.

A part of the sum inside this grant will make it difficult for some authorities to increase their expenditure. The more necessitous the area from the point of view of industrial trouble the greater will be the de-rating. This particular sum of money about which he speaks will in no way make up for the loss of rates, and it will he the very necessitous areas which will lose rates. It may be true that, on balance, some may gain more per head, but you have not merely to reckon the amount you have allocated by this formula in respect of the services in this particular block, but you have to consider your loss of rates on the yield of a penny rate in that area. If, as will be the case in many areas, they will lose thousands of pounds in the yield of a penny rate, supposing you get an increase of the other services, then the increase of rate poundage on those services will make it impossible for these particular health services to get the amount which they ought to get in order to allow for necessary expansion. I believe the Government as a whole have never understood or fully appreciated the effect of their scheme in narrowing the assessment basis and losing the yield of a penny rate. The difficulties that will ensue, revision or no revision, guarantee or no guarantee, in the application of an arbitrary system like this have never been fully realised. Once again I repeat what I said at the beginning: Whatever may be said from the point of view of idealism for concentrating health services and getting team work on the administrative side, any advantage obtained in that direction will be more than nullified in experience by the application of this particular arbitrary formula.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 174; Noes, 102.

Division No. 220.]
AYES.
[10.13p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Boothby, R. J. G.


Albery, Irving James
Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Bennett, Albert (Nottingham, C.)
Boyd-Carpenter, Major Sir A. B.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Berry, Sir George
Brass, Captain W.


Atholl, Duchess of
Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Brassey, Sir Leonard


Atkinson, C.
Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Blundell, F. N.
Briggs, J. Harold


Briscoe, Richard George
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Remer, J. R.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Hills, Major John Waller
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y,Ch'ts'y)


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Hope, Sir Harry (Fortar)
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Càssels, J. D.
Horlick, Lieut. Colonel J. N.
Ross, R. D.


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Ruggies-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt.R. (Prtsmth.S.)
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Rye, F. G.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hume, Sir G. H.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Hurd, Percy A.
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Cope, Major Sir William
Hurst, Gerald B.
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Couper, J. B.
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Sandon, Lord


Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Sassoon Sir Philip Albert Gustave D


Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Savery, S. S.


Dalkeith, Earl of
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl (Rentrew, W)


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Shepperson, E. W.


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Little, Dr. E. Graham
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Dawson, Sir Philip
Loder, J. de V.
Skelton, A. N.


Eden, Captain Anthony
Long, Major Eric
Smith, R.W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dlne, C.)


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Mac Andrew Major Charles Glen
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Ellis, R. G.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
McLean, Major A.
Storry-Deans, R.


Fanshawe, Captain G. D.
Macmillan, Captain H.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Fermoy, Lord
Macquisten, F. A.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Ford, Sir P. J.
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Margesson, Captain D.
Tasker, R. Inigo.


Fraser, Captain Ian
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Tinne, J. A.


Fremantle, Lieut-Colonel Francis E.
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Galbraith, J. F. W.
Meller, R. J
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Gates, Percy
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough


Gower, Sir Robert
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Waddington, R.


Grant, Sir J. A.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Greene, W. P. Crawford
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Ward, Lt.-Col.A.L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Moore, Sir Newton J.
Warner, Brigadler-Geiteral W. W


Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Morrison H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Warrender, Sir Victor


Grotrian, H. Brent
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Neville, Sir Reginald J.
Watts, Sir Thomas


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Nuttall, Ellis
Wayland, Sir William A.


Hamilton, Sir George
Ornan, Sir Charles William C.
Wells S. R


Hammersley, S. S.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Harland, A.
Perring, Sir William George
Windsor-Clive. Lieut.-Colonel George


Harrison, G. J. C.
Plicher, G.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Hartington Marquess of
Power, Sir John Cecil
Womersley, W. J.


Headlam, Lieut-Colonel C. M.
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Wragg, Herbert


Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Preston, Sir Walter (Cheltonham)



Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian
Radford, E. A.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Ramsden, E.
Mr. F. C. Thomson and Mr. Penny.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edln., Cent.)
Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Greenall, T.
Murnin, H.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Naylor, T. E.


Ammon, Charles George
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Oliver, George Harold


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bliston)
Griffith, F. Kingsley
Palin, John Henry


Barnes, A.
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Paling, W.


Barr, J.
Groves, T.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Batey, Joseph
Hall. F. (York. W.R., Normanton)
Potts, John S.


Bellamy, A.
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hardie, George D.
Ritson, J.


Bromley, J.
Hayes, John Henry
Saklatvala, Shapurji


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Scrymgeour, E.


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Hirst, G. H.
Scurr, John


Buchanan, G.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Shield, G. W.


Charleton, H. C.
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Cluse, W. S.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Connolly, M.
Kelly, W. T.
Smillie, Robert


Cove, W. O.
Kennedy, T.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Lawrence, Susan
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Dalton, Hugh
Lawson, John James
Snell, Harry


Day, Harry
Lee, F.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Dunnico, H.
Lindley, F. W.
Stephen, Campbell


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Lowth, T.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Absravon)
Strauss, E. A.


Forrest, W.
Mackinder, W.
Sullivan, J.


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
MacLaren. Andrew
Sutton, J. E.


Gillett, George M.
Mac Neill-Weir, L.
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Maxton, James
Tinker, John Joseph




Tomilnson, R. P.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Whiteley, W.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)
Windsor, Walter


Wellock, Wilfred
Williams, David (Swansea, E.)



Welsh, J. C.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Westwood, J.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
Major-General Sir Robert Hutchison




and Major Owen.

Sir R. HAMILTON: I beg to move, in page 35, line 13, after the word "grants," to insert the words
other than the grant given to Highland counties under Section 22 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1889.
This Amendment is moved with a view to eliciting information from the Government on a point which is not quite clear to the ordinary Member. Section 22 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act provides that certain sums from the Local Taxation (Scotland) Account may be applied in a particular manner, and these sums include a sum of £10,000 granted to the Highlands and Islands of Scotland to be expended for such purposes and in such manner as the county councils of the areas concerned may determine. This particular grant would appear to be one of the discontinued grants and I wish to be assured that this £10,000, formerly assigned specifically to the Highlands and Islands, has not been left out of account but will be met from other sources.

Major ELLIOT: This grant has not been left out of account but will be more than met by grants from other sources. Of course this particular grant, in this particular form—has been discontinued, but the net gain to the Highland counties will be enormously greater than the grant which is being discontinued. Grants amounting to £91,000 are being given in its stead, and the net gain to the Highland counties is over £80,000 sterling. Argyll which used to have £3,089 will have £19,856, Caithness which used to have £950 will have £6,600. Inverness which used to have 22,768, will have£16,403. Orkney which used to have £372, will have £7,033. Ross and Cromarty which used to have £1,859, will have £18,885. Shetland which used to have £204, will have £4,154 and Sutherland instead of £754 6s. 10d. will have £8,082.

Sir R. HAMILTON: I understand that, but my point is that this was a special sum allocated for special purposes and specially set aside for the Highlands and Islands. I understand it is going to be dropped. The figures given by the hon.
and gallant Gentleman relate to the general application of the scheme to the whole of Scotland.

Mr. TINNE: What sum is being allotted to the Little Cumbrae?

Major ELLIOT: I am afraid the hon. Member is not intimately acquainted with the geography of Scotland. The Little Cumbrae is some distance from any of the places which I have mentioned. This sum comes under the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1889, and is one of the stereotyped grants which we are sweeping away under this Measure. It is quite true that it was devoted to various Highland purposes, such as roads and piers but, as I have said, sums much in excess of it are coming in its stead. The main Highland grant, however, which has not been swept away, is the Highlands and Islands Medical Grant. This is really untouched and will, in addition, have to be substantially increased. Taking the actual money going into the Highland counties to deal with the problems for which those grants were made in 1889 the grant of £10,000 is being discontinued and £91,000 will be available.

Sir R. HAMILTON: In view of the hon. and gallant Gentleman's explanation, and as I shall be quite ready to accept the larger sum, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. STEWART: I beg to move, in page 35, line 14, to leave out from the beginning, to the word "in" in line 15.
With this Amendment the Clause would read:
The grants set out in the Third Schedule to this Act (in this Act referred to as 'the discontinued grants') shall cease to be payable in respect of any period after the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and thirty.
The grants you are taking away are the grants for health services, and we desire to take a vote as a protest.

Amendment negatived.

Dr. SHIELS: I beg to move, in page 35, line 18, after the word "grants," to insert the words:
except those for maternity and child welfare.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 106; Noes, 181.

Division No. 221.]
AYES.
[10.30 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fits, West)
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Saklatvala, Shapurji


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hirst, G. H.
Scrymgeour, E.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Scurr, John


Ammon, Charles George
Hutchison, Maj-Gen. Sir R.
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Baker, J. (Wolverhamton, Bllston)
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Shield, G. W.


Barnes, A.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Barr, J.
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Batey, Joseph
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Smillie, Robert


Bellamy, A,
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Kelly, W. T.
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Bromley, J.
Kennedy, T.
Snell, Harry


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Buchanan, G.
Lawrence, Susan
Stephen, Campbell


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Lawson, John James
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Charleton, H. C.
Lee, F.
Strauss, E. A.


Cluse, W. S.
Lindley, F. W.
Sullivan, J.


Connolly, M.
Lowth, T.
Sutton, J. E


Cove, W. G.
Lunn, William
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
MacDonald. Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Tinker, John Joseph


Dalton, Hugh
Mackinder, W.
Tomlinson, R. P.


Day, Harry
MacLaren, Andrew
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Dunnico, H.
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Maxton, James
Wellock, Wilfred


Gillett, George M.
Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)
Welsh, J. C.


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Westwood, J.


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edln., Cent.)
Murnin, H.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Greenall, T.
Naylor, T. E.
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Oliver, George Harold
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Griffith, F. Kingsley
Owen, Major G.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Palin, John Henry
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Atterclife)


Groves, T.
Paling, W.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Windsor, Walter


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Potts, John S.



Hardle, George D.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hayes, John Henry
Ritson, J.
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Whiteley.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Grotrian, H. Brent


Albery, Irving James
Cope, Major Sir William
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Couper, J. B.
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M.S.
Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Hamilton, Sir George


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington,N.)
Hammersley, S. S.


Atholl, Duchess of
Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Harland, A.


Atkinson, C.
Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Harrison, G. J. C.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Dalkeith, Earl of
Hartington, Marquess of


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Dawson, Sir Philip
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian


Bennet, Albert (Nottingham, C.)
Eden, Captain Anthony
Henn, Sir Sydney H.


Berry, Sir George
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)
Hills, Major John Waller


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard


Blundell, F. N.
Ellis, R. G.
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)


Boothby, R. J. G.
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Fanshawe, Captain G. D.
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.


Brass, Captain W.
Fermoy, Lord
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Ford, Sir P. J.
Hume, Sir G. H.


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer


Briggs, J. Harold
Forrest, W.
Hurd, Percy A.


Briscoe, Richard George
Fraser, Captain Ian
Hurst, Gerald B.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Fremantle, Lt.-Col. Francis E.
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Jones, Sir G.W.H. (Stoke New'gton)


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Gates, Percy
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)


Cassels, J. D.
Gower, Sir Robert
King, Commodore Henry Douglas


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Grant, Sir J. A.
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Little, Dr. E. Graham


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Loder, J. de V.


Long, Major Eric
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Preston, Sir Walter (Cheltenham)
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.


MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Radford, E. A.
Storry-Deans, R.


Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Ramsden, E.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Ramer, J. R.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


McLean, Major A.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Macmillan, Captain H.
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)
Tasker, R. Inigo.


Macquisten, F. A.
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


MacRobert, Alexander M.
Ropner, Major L.
Tinne, J. A.


Margesson, Captain D.
Ross, R. D.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Ruggies-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough


Meller, R. J.
Rye, F. G.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Waddington, R.


Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Sandeman, N. Stewart
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Moore, Sir Newton J.
Sanderson, Sir Frank
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Sandon, Lord
Watts, Sir Thomas


Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
Wayland, Sir William A.


Neville, Sir Reginald J.
Savery, S. S.
Wells, S. R.


Nuttall, Ellis
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew,W.)
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Shepperson, E. W.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Skelton, A. N.
Womersley, W. J.


Perring, Sir William George
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Wragg, Herbert


Pilcher, G.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.



Power, Sir John Cecil
Southby, Commander A. R. J.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. Penny and Captain Wallace.

It being after half-past Ten of the. Clock, the CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to the Order of the House of 12th December, successively to put forthwith the Questions on any Amendments moved by the Government of which notice had been given, and the Questions necessary

to dispose of the business to be concluded at half-past Ten of the Clock at this day's Sitting.

Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 181; Noes, 104.

Division No. 222.]
AYES.
[10.40 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Hills, Major John Waller


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles
Dalkeith, Earl of
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard


Albery, Irving James
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Dawson, Sir Philip
Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Eden, Captain Anthony
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.


Atholl, Duchess of
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)


Atkinson, C.
Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)
Hume, Sir G. H.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Ellis, R. G.
Hurd, Percy A.


Beamish, Bear-Admiral T. P. H.
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Hurst, Gerald B.


Bonn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.


Bennett, Albert (Nottingham, C.)
Fanshawe, Captain G. D.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)


Berry, Sir George
Fermoy, Lord
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Ford, Sir P. J.
King, Commodore Henry Douglas


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement


Blundell, F. N.
Forrest, W.
Little, Dr. E. Graham


Boothby, R. J. G.
Fraser, Captain Ian
Loder, J. de V.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Fremantle, Lt.-Col. Francis E.
Long, Major Eric


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere


Brass, Captain W.
Gales, Percy
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Gower, Sir Robert
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Grant, Sir J. A.
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Catheart)


Briggs, J. Harold
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
McLean, Major A.


Briscoe, Richard George
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Macmillan, Captain H.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Macquisten, F. A.


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Mac Robert, Alexander M.


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Grotrian, H. Brent
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.


Cassels, J. D.
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Meller, R. J.


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth.S.)
Hamilton, Sir George
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Hammersley, S. S.
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Harland, A.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Harrison, G. J. C.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)


Colfox, Major William Phillips
Hartington, Marquess of
Moore, Sir Newton J.


Cope, Major Sir William
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)


Couper, J. B.
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian
Neville, Sir Reginald J.


Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington,N.)
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Nuttall, Ellis


Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Sandeman, N. Stewart
Tinne, J. A.


Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Sanderson, Sir Frank
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Perring, Sir William George
Sandon, Lord
Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough


Pilcher, G
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Power, Sir John Cecil
Savery, S. S.
Waddington, R.


Pownall, Sir Assheton
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W)
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Preston, Sir Walter (Cheltenham)
Shepperson, E. W.
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston,on.Hull)


Radford, E. A.
Simms, Or. John M. (Co. Down)
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Ramsden, E.
Skelton, A. N.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Remer, J. R.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dlne, C.)
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Watts, Sir Thomas


Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)
Southby, Commander A. R. J.
Wayland, Sir William A.


Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.
Wells, S. R.


Ropner, Major L.
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Ross, R. D.
Storry-Deans, R.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser
Womersley, W J.


Rye, F. G.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid
Wragg, Herbert


Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Tasker, R. Inigo.



Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—




Mr. Penny and Captain Margesson.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (File, West)
Hirst, G. H.
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Shield, G. W.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.
Shleis, Dr. Drummond


Amman, Charles George
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Sitch, Charles H.


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bliston)
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Barnes, A.
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Smillie, Robert


Barr, J.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Batey, Joseph
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Bellamy, A.
Kelly, W. T.
Snell, Harry


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Kennedy, T.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Bromley, J.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Stephen, Campbell


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Lawrence, Susan
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Buchanan, G.
Lawson, John James
Strauss, E. A.


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Lea, F.
Sullivan, J.


Charleton, H. C.
Lindley, F. W.
Sutton, J. E.


Cluse, W. S.
Lowth, T.
Thorne, G. R (Wolverhampton, E.)


Connolly, M.
Lunn, William
Tinker, John Joseph


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Tomlinson, R. P.


Dalton, Hugh
Mackinder, W.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Day, Harry
Mac Laren, Andrew
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Dunnico, H.
Mac Neill-Weir, L.
Wellock, Wilfred


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Maxton, James
Welsh, J. C.


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)
Westwood, J.


Gillett, George M.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Murnin, H.
Whiteley, W.


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edln., Cent.)
Naylor, T. E.
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Greenall, T.
Oliver, George Harold
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Owen, Major G.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Pailn, John Henry
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Griffith, F. Kingsley
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Potts, John S.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Groves, T.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Windsor, Walter


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Ritson, J.



Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Saklatvala, Shapurji
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hardie, George D.
Scrymgeour, E.
Mr. Hayes and Mr. Paling.


Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Scurr, John

CLAUSE 38.—(Payment and apportionment of General Exchequer Contributions.)

Amendments made:

In page 36, line 8, leave out the words "amounting to," and insert instead thereof the words:
(2) The amount of the General Exchequer Contribution shall be periodically revised, The amount first fixed shall be for a period of three years beginning on the sixteenth day of May, nineteen hundred and thirty, the amount fixed on the first revision
shall be for a period of four years from the expiration of the first period, the amount fixed on any subsequent revision shall be for a period of five years from the expiration of the previous period, and a period for which the General Exchequer Contribution is so fixed is hereinafter referred to as a 'fixed grant period.'
(3) The amount of the General Exchequer Contribution shall be.

In line 14, leave out the word "quinquennium," and insert instead thereof pile words, "fixed grant period."—[The Lord Advocate.]

Consequential Amendments made.

Further Amendment made:

In page 36, line 22, leave out the words "fourth year of the preceding quinquennium," and insert instead thereof the words, "penultimate year of the preceding fixed grant period."—[The Lord Advocate.]

Consequential Amendments made.

Further Amendments made:

In page 37, leave out from the first word "the," in line 2, to the word "in," in line 4, and insert instead thereof the words:

penultimate year of the preceding fixed grant period a reference to the last year preceding the said penultimate year.

In line 10, leave out the words "three quinquennia," and insert instead thereof the words "four fixed go-ant periods."—[The Lord Advocate.]

Consequential Amendment made.

Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 180; Noes, 104.

Division No. 223.]
AYES.
[10.51 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Grant, Sir J. A.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles
Grattan-Doyie, Sir N.
Perring, Sir William George


Albery, Irving James
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Pilcher, G.


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Power, Sir John Cecil


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W
Grotrian, H. Brent
Preston, Sir Walter (Cheltenham)


Atholl, Duchess of
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Radford, E. A.


Atkinson, C.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Ramsden, E.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Hamilton, Sir George
Remer, J. R.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Hammersley, S. S.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Harland, A.
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Harrison, G. J. C.
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Bennett, Albert (Nottingham, C.)
Hartington, Marquess of
Ropner, Major L.


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Ross, R. D.


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Henderson, Capt. R.R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E A.


Blundell, F. N.
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Boothby, R. J. G.
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Rye, F. G.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Hills, Major John Walter
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Brass, Captain W.
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Briggs, J. Harold
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Sandon, Lord


Briscoe, Richard George
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Hume, Sir G. H.
Savery, S. S.


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W.)


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Hurd, Percy A.
Shepperson, E. W.


Cassels, J. D.
Hurst, Gerald B.
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Skelton, A. N.


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth.S.)
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine.C)


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston).
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Little, Dr. E. Graham
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.


Cope, Major Sir William
Loder, J. de V.
Storry-Deans, R.


Couper, J. B.
Long, Major Eric
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islingtn., N.)
Mac Andrew, Major Charles Glen
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Tasker, R. Inigo.


Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Dalkeith, Earl of
McLean, Major A.
Tinne, J. A.


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Macmillan, Captain H.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Macquisten, F. A.
Tryon, Rt. Hon George Clement


Dawson, Sir Philip
Mac Robert, Alexander M.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Eden, Captain Anthony
Margesson, Captain D.
Waddington, R


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Meller, R. J.
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Ellis, R. G.
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Warrender, Sir Victor


Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Watts, Sir Thomas


Fanshawe, Captain G. D.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Wayland, Sir William A.


Fermoy, Lord
Moore, Sir Newton J.
Wells, S. R.


Ford, Sir P. J.
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Forrest, W.
Nelson, Sir Frank
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Fraser, Captain Ian
Neville, Sir Reginald J.
Womersley, W. J.


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Wragg, Herbert


Galbraith, J. F. W.
Nuttall, Ellis



Gates, Percy
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Gower, Sir Robert
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Major Sir George Hennessy and Mr. Penny.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (File, West)
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Scurr, John


Adamson, W. M. (Start., Cannock)
Hirst, G. H.
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Shield, G. W.


Ammon, Charles George
Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.
Sitch, Charles H.


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bllston)
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Barnes, A.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Smillie, Rober


Barr, J.
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Batey, Joseph
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Bellamy, A.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Snell, Harry


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Kelly, W. T.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Bromley, J.
Kennedy, T.
Stephen, Campbell


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Buchanan, G.
Lawrence, Susan
Strauss, E. A.


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Lawson, John James.
Sullivan, J.


Charleton, H. C.
Lee, F.
Sutton, J. E.


Cluse, W. S.
Lindley, F. W.
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Connolly, M.
Lowth, T.
Tinker, John Joseph


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Lunn, William
Tomilnson, R. P.


Dalton, Hugh
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Day, Harry
Mackinder, W.
Watts-Morgan. Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Duncan, C.
MacLaren, Andrew
Wellock, Wilfred


Dunnico, H,
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Welsh, J. C.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Maxton, James
Westwood, J.


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J


Gillett, George M.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Whiteley, W.


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Murnin, H.
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edln., Cent.)
Naylor, T. E.
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Greenall, T.
Oliver, George Harold
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Owen, Major G.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Palin, John Henry
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Griffith, F. Kingsley
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Wilson, R, J. (Jarrow)


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Potts, John S.
Windsor, Walter


Groves, T.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)



Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Ritson, J.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Saklatvala, Shapurji
Mr. Hayes and Mr. Paling.


Hardie, George D.
Scrymgeour, E.



Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 39.—(Payments out of Road Fund towards General Exchequer Contribution.)

Amendments made:

In page 37, line 35, leave out the word "quinquennium," and insert instead thereof the words "fixed grant period."

Consequential Amendments made.

In page 38, line 9, after the word "shall," insert the words "as from the first day of April, nineteen hundred and thirty."

In line 10, leave out from the beginning, to the word "in," in line 12.

In page 38, leave out from the word "the," in line 16, to end of Clause, and insert instead thereof the words:
Road Fund in addition to sums paid into that fund under Sub-section (3) of the said Section 2 a sum of sixty-four thousand and one pounds seventeen shillings."—[The Lord Advocate.]

It being after Eleven of the Clock, the CHAIRMAN left the Chair to make his Report to the House.

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Orders of the Day — ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjonrn."—[Commander Eyres Monsen.]

Adjourned accordingly at Four Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.